Truace
Subscribe
68/100

Moderate evidence

ProblemPublished recordBusinessProblem Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

Chatbot or Human? Rethinking Complaint Handling in Customer Service

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2609raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Controlled or validated comparison
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
a9f080e03c44…check it

ABSTRACT AI chatbots face major challenges in managing emotionally charged customer complaints. While they offer scalability, speed, and unlimited availability, they are perceived to be impersonal, particularly in service recovery situations that require empathy. This research examines when and how consumers accept chatbots in complaint‐handling contexts and how specific design attributes influence that acceptance. Across four pre‐registered studies conducted with student, professional, and online (Prolific) con…

The problem

In a study of 200 university participants, consumers preferred human agents to resolve complaints even after a chatbot had successfully resolved their issue.

What this doesn’t fix

The studies used samples of university students, professionals and online consumers, ranging from 75 to 300 participants, and tested preferences in experimental settings rather than real company complaint systems.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Journal of Consumer Behaviourdoi:10.1002/cb.70185
    Peer-reviewed2026-06-12

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2609, v1: “Chatbot or Human? Rethinking Complaint Handling in Customer Service.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2609 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 a9f080e03c44ce9e…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv1a9f080e03c44…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2609 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.