aceModerate evidence
Published recordBusinessGood Space
More
Automated Versus Human Agents: A Meta-Analysis of Customer Responses to Robots, Chatbots, and Algorithms and Their Contingencies
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2727raw data (JSON)
- Version
- v1Published
- First published
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- sha256
- 042a183dd407…check it
This meta-analysis examines when three types of automated agents (AAs)—robots, chatbots, and algorithms—are equivalent to human agents (HAs) in marketing roles. An analysis of 943 effect sizes from 327 studies provides novel insights. First, customers may be skeptical of AAs; however, they value their performance and eventually choose or buy from them as if they were interacting with HAs. Second, each of the three AA types has a unique set of contingencies that affect its human equivalence; previously identified…
The gain
A meta-analysis of 943 effect sizes from 327 studies found that customers, though skeptical of robots, chatbots and algorithms, value their performance and eventually choose or buy from them as if dealing with human agents.
What this doesn’t fix
Contingencies identified in earlier research do not generalize across robots, chatbots and algorithms and can have opposing effects, so the conclusions on human equivalence depend on the agent type and task.
Sources
1 on file- Journal of Marketingdoi:10.1177/00222429251344139
Cite this record
v1Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2727, v1: “Automated Versus Human Agents: A Meta-Analysis of Customer Responses to Robots, Chatbots, and Algorithms and Their Contingencies.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2727 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 042a183dd40761ad…
Change history
1 versionEvery change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.
Certified into the record
Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page
Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2727 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.