Machine Talk: How Verbal Embodiment in Conversational AI Shapes Consumer–Brand Relationships
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
Abstract This research shows that AI-based conversational interfaces can have a profound impact on consumer–brand relationships. We develop a conceptual model of verbal embodiment in technology-mediated communication that integrates three key properties of human-to-human dialogue—(1) turn-taking (i.e., alternating contributions by the two parties), (2) turn initiation (i.e., the act of initiating the next turn in a sequence), and (3) grounding between turns (i.e., acknowledging the other party’s contribution by restating or rephrasing it). These fundamental conversational properties systematically shape consumers’ perception of an AI-based conversational interface, their perception of the brand that the interface represents, and their behavior in connection with that brand. Converging evidence from four studies shows that these dialogue properties enhance the perceived humanness of the interface, which in turn promotes more intimate consumer–brand relationships and more favorable behavioral brand outcomes (greater recommendation acceptance, willingness to pay a price premium, brand advocacy, and brand loyalty). Moreover, we show that these effects are reduced in contexts requiring less mutual understanding between the consumer and the brand. This research highlights how fundamental principles of human-to-human communication can be harnessed to design more intimate consumer–brand interactions in an increasingly AI-driven marketplace.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it