aceModerate evidence
More
People who name their chatbot are more willing to reuse it after it fails, experiments find
Study title: From Stranger to Someone: How Naming Creates Closeness and Buffers Chatbot Service Failure
- Evidence type
- Controlled or validated comparison
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- Published
- 2 min read
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2666cite or check it
Study title: From Stranger to Someone: How Naming Creates Closeness and Buffers Chatbot Service Failure
A peer-reviewed paper in Psychology & Marketing reports four experiments plus a content analysis of naming texts. Consumers who named a chatbot themselves showed higher intention to reuse it after a service failure than those who did not name it.
Read the study abstract
ABSTRACT Chatbot service failures have become increasingly common across service settings, reducing consumers' willingness to reuse these technologies. This research examines whether naming behavior can preserve reuse intention following chatbot service failure. Across four experiments and a content analysis of naming texts, we find that consumers exhibit higher reuse intention toward chatbots they name themselves than toward chatbots they do not name. By comparing consumer‐assigned, firm‐assigned, and unnamed c…
The gain
In four experiments, consumers who named a chatbot themselves reported higher intention to reuse it after a service failure than consumers whose chatbot was unnamed, because naming made it feel closer.
In brief
The researchers also compared consumer-assigned, firm-assigned and unnamed chatbots. This separated the act of naming from simply having a name, and the benefit came from the consumer doing the naming.
The effect ran through closeness: giving the chatbot a name made it feel relationally closer, which raised reuse intention. It was stronger in hedonic (enjoyment-oriented) services and weaker in utilitarian ones, so it may help firms less where tasks are purely functional.
Main points
- The research combines four experiments with a content analysis of the texts consumers used when naming chatbots.
- Consumers who named their chatbot reported higher reuse intention after a failure than those with unnamed chatbots.
- Consumer-assigned, firm-assigned and unnamed chatbots were compared to separate the act of naming from the mere presence of a name.
- Feelings of closeness to the chatbot mediated the effect of naming on reuse intention.
- The naming effect was stronger in hedonic service contexts and weaker in utilitarian ones.
The full story
The study responds to chatbot service failures becoming more common across service settings, which reduce consumers' willingness to reuse these technologies. It tests whether naming behavior can preserve reuse intention after a failure.
Its design compares three conditions: chatbots named by consumers, chatbots named by firms and unnamed chatbots. That comparison lets the authors distinguish the effect of performing the naming action from the effect of the mere presence of a name.
The authors identify service type as a boundary condition. The effect is stronger for hedonic services and weaker for utilitarian ones, and they present consumer-assigned naming as a preventive pathway that firms can use to manage chatbot failures.
Sources
1 on file- Psychology & Marketingdoi:10.1002/mar.70250
Talk it over
Who gets this benefit, and who was left out of the study or story?
People who name their chatbot are more willing to reuse it after it fails, experiments findhttps://truvace.com/item/from-stranger-to-someone-how-naming-creates-closeness-and-buffers-chatbot-servic
Who gets this benefit, and who was left out of the study or story?
The gain In four experiments, consumers who named a chatbot themselves reported higher intention to reuse it after a service failure than consumers whose chatbot was unnamed, because naming made it feel closer.
Answer in the threadHow do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?
The evidence This rests on a controlled comparison, from Psychology & Marketing.
Answer in the threadWhat does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?
The record’s own caveat The naming benefit was weaker in utilitarian service contexts, so it does not apply equally across all types of chatbot services.
Answer in the threadHave you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?
Answer in the thread
The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.
What readers say