More Than a Bot? The Impact of Disclosing Human Involvement on Customer Interactions with Hybrid Service Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To leverage the complementary strengths of humans and artificial intelligence (AI) in online service encounters, firms have begun to use hybrid service agents: combinations of AI agents (e.g., chatbots) and human agents (e.g., service employees) behind a single interface. However, it is unclear whether firms should be transparent about behind-the-scenes employees working in tandem with an AI-based chatbot to serve customers. Against this backdrop, we investigated the impact of human involvement disclosure on customer interactions with hybrid service agents. Our findings suggest that disclosing human involvement before or during an interaction with the hybrid service agent leads customers to adopt a more human-oriented communication style. This effect is driven by impression management concerns that are activated when customers become aware of humans working in tandem with the chatbot. The more human-oriented communication style ultimately increases employee workload because fewer customer requests can be handled automatically by the chatbot and must be delegated to a human. These findings provide novel insights into how and why disclosing human involvement affects customer communication behavior, reveal its negative consequences for employees working in tandem with a chatbot, and highlight the potential costs and benefits of providing transparency in customer–hybrid service agent interactions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".