Bots with Feelings: Should AI Agents Express Positive Emotion in Customer Service?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise of emotional intelligence technology and the recent debate about the possibility of a “sentient” artificial intelligence (AI) urge the need to study the role of emotion during people’s interactions with AIs. In customer service, human employees are increasingly replaced by AI agents, such as chatbots, and often these AI agents are equipped with emotion-expressing capabilities to replicate the positive impact of human-expressed positive emotion. But is it indeed beneficial? This research explores how, when, and why an AI agent’s expression of positive emotion affects customers’ service evaluations. Through controlled experiments in which the subjects interacted with a service agent (AI or human) to resolve a hypothetical service issue, we provide answers to these questions. We show that AI-expressed positive emotion can influence customers affectively (by evoking customers’ positive emotions) and cognitively (by violating customers’ expectations) in opposite directions. Thus, positive emotion expressed by an AI agent (versus a human employee) is less effective in facilitating service evaluations. We further underscore that, depending on customers’ expectations toward their relationship with a service agent, AI-expressed positive emotion may enhance or hurt service evaluations. Overall, our work provides useful guidance on how and when companies can best deploy emotion-expressing AI agents.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it