Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Emotional expression by artificial intelligence chatbots to improve

customer satisfaction: Underlying mechanism and boundary conditions
Junbo Zhang a, Qi Chen b, Jiandong Lu a, Xiaolei Wang c, Luning Liu a, *, Yuqiang Feng a
a
School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang, 150001, PR China
b
School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, Liaoning, 116081, PR China
c
School of Information Technology and Management, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, 100029, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Artificial intelligence chatbots have invaded the tourism industry owing to their low cost and high efficiency.
Chatbot However, the influence of emotional expressions of chatbots on service outcomes has not received much
Human-computer interaction attention from researchers. Drawing upon expectancy violations theory, we explored how emotional expressions
Expectancy violations theory
of chatbots affect customer satisfaction using three experiments in the context of tourist attraction recommen­
Emotional expressions
Customer service
dations. Chatbots’ expressions of concern for customers can improve customer satisfaction by reducing expec­
Customer satisfaction tancy violations. In particular, customer’s goal orientation, the human-likeness of chatbot’s avatars, and the
relationship type between customers and chatbots can moderate the negative relationship between emotional
expression and expectancy violation. These findings advance research on the emotional expressions of chatbots
and provide critical insights for deploying chatbots in customer service in the tourism industry.

1. Introduction prefer communications with humans to AI chatbot interactions (Fan, Lu,

Significant advances in technologies such as machine learning and
artificial intelligence (AI) have increased the penetration of chatbots as
conversational agents (CAs). Chatbots are relatively inexpensive to
implement and respond quickly to real-time customer messages (Adam,
Wessel, & Benlian, 2021; M. Li, Yin, Qiu, & Bai, 2021). AI-enabled
chatbots are transforming the operating pattern of tourism companies
(Orden-Mejía & Huertas, 2022; Pillai & Sivathanu, 2020; Samala, Kat­
kam, Bellamkonda, & Rodriguez, 2020). An increasing number of
tourism companies use chatbots frequently in their customer services
ranging from simple airline reservations to complex personalized travel
recommendations to ease the complexity of the traveling consulting
process (FlowXO, 2022; L. Li, Yin, et al., 2021; Shi, Gong, & Gursoy,
2021; Orden-Mejía & Huertas, 2022). Chatbots make interactions with
tourists more flexible, innovative, and fun (de Kervenoael, Hasan,
Schwob, & Goh, 2020). It is predicted that 95% of online service in­
teractions will occur via AI chatbots by 2028 (Chong, Yu, Keeling, & de
Ruyter, 2021).
In contrast to the ongoing trend of AI chatbot services, some tourism
companies hesitate to get on the AI train due to concerns about the
service effectiveness of AI chatbots. It is observed that customers usually
Mao, & Eddie, 2022; van Esch et al., 2022), as they consider AI chatbots
to lack the problem-solving capability and emotional experience (Chong
et al., 2021; van Esch et al., 2022; H. Kim, So, & Wirtz, 2022). Improving
customer satisfaction with chatbot services becomes a critical challenge
for tourism companies (Fan et al., 2022; Orden-Mejía & Huertas, 2022).
Chatbots are increasingly influential in solving real-world problems
(e.g., ChatGPT); however, they often fail to deliver a satisfying
emotional customer experience and violate customer expectations of
affective interactions (Becker, Efendić, & Odekerken-Schröder, 2022;
Kim, Jiang, Duhachek, Lee, & Garvey, 2022; Hildebrand & Bergner,
2021; van Esch et al., 2022; Zhou, Fei, He, & Yang, 2022). Whether
chatbots’ emotional expressions can improve customer satisfaction and
to which emotions chatbots should respond during conversations remain
unclear (Jiang et al., 2022) despite the growing research attention given
to chatbots’ emotional anthropomorphism (Becker et al., 2022; Miao,
Kozlenkova, Wang, Xie, & Palmatier, 2022; van Esch et al., 2022; X.
Wang, Jiang, Han, & Qiu, 2022).
Customers always expect to gain concern from the service staff
(Gorry & Westbrook, 2011). Concern is an indispensable cornerstone for
building affective trust with customers (Akhoondnejad, 2016; I. P.
Tussyadiah & Park, 2018). When switching to the AI chatbot service

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liuluning@hit.edu.cn (L. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104835
Received 2 March 2023; Received in revised form 15 July 2023; Accepted 25 August 2023
Available online 11 September 2023
0261-5177/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

scenario, we consider that emotional expression of concern from chat­ exploring the influence of chatbots on customer experience in tourism
bots will likely compensate for customers’ perceptions of expectation services is essential for research and practice (Tung & Law, 2017).
violations from poor emotional experience during interactions, thus
improving customer satisfaction. However, this conjecture has not been 2.2. The impact of chatbots on customer experience
discussed by prior research. Moreover, customer expectations toward
emotional interaction may be contingent on characteristics of both sides Current chatbot research in the tourism industry focused on factors
of the interaction, i.e., customer traits and chatbot features, which influencing chatbot adoption and improving customer satisfaction. We
deserve further exploration. Therefore, we focus on the chatbots’ summarize the main research findings about chatbots in recent years in
emotional expressions of concern in customer services, and particularly Table 1. Based on the service robot acceptance model (Wirtz et al.,
expect to understand the following research questions: 2018), we classify these drivers as functional elements, social-emotional
elements, and relational elements.
RQ1. What role do chatbots’ emotional expressions of concern affect
Functional elements are primarily productivity-related factors.
customer expectations and satisfaction?
Scholars in the tourism industry identified ease of use, usefulness, per­
RQ2. How the influence of emotional concern may vary with customer formance expectancy, media richness, competence, accessibility, infor­
traits and designed features of chatbots? mativeness, and reliability as the primary functional elements that drive
user adoption of chatbots and satisfaction (Lei, Shen, & Ye, 2021; Liu, Yi,
This study draws upon expectancy violations theory (EVT) and uses
Shannon, & Wan, 2022; Melián-González, Gutiérrez-Taño, &
three scenario-based online experiments to explore the above research
Bulchand-Gidumal, 2021; Pillai & Sivathanu, 2020; Yoon & Yu, 2022).
questions. We found that chatbots’ emotional expressions of concern
Social-emotional elements represent the social interactions between
improved customer satisfaction via reduced expectancy violation. The
users and robots, such as perceived humanness and perceived social
negative impact of emotional expressions on expectancy violation can
presence. The primary socio-emotional elements influencing the adop­
be mitigated when the customer has low process-oriented or high
tion and customer satisfaction of chatbots in the tourism industry
outcome-oriented goals, the human-likeness of chatbots’ avatars is low,
include a perceived social presence, anthropomorphism, interactivity,
and the relationship type between chatbots and customers is ‘friend’.
and empathy (Cai et al., 2022; Lei et al., 2021; M. A. Orden-Mejía &
Our findings make several significant contributions to the literature.
Huertas, 2022).
First, this paper attempts to study the influence of emotion expressed by
Relational elements are the outcomes associated with relational
AI chatbots on customer satisfaction in tourism services. Second, we
bonds. Scholars identified trust, privacy risk, perceived warmth,
identified expectancy violation as an underlying mechanism relying
perceived cuteness, and perceived need for relatedness as the primary
upon which emotional expressions of chatbots affect customer satis­
relational elements driving user adoption and satisfaction
faction. Third, we advance the study of boundary conditions for chatbots
(Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2021; Liu, Yi, et al., 2022; Lv, Luo, Liang, Liu, &
in tourism by highlighting an unstudied and essential dimension.
Li, 2022; Pillai & Sivathanu, 2020; Zhang et al., 2022).
Two research opportunities remain in the current study. First, in the
2. Literature review and theoretical background
tourism industry, chatbots are replacing human employees to provide
online customer services (Melián-González & Bulchand-Gidumal, 2020);
2.1. Chatbots in tourism services
however, the impact of their emotional expressions on customer satis­
faction has not received much attention. In service encounters,
Chatbots refer to software applications designed for interacting with
emotional expressions from human employees to customers (e.g., smil­
humans using natural written language (Rapp, Curti, & Boldi, 2021).
ing, greeting, and thanking) are critical determinants of customer ser­
They communicate with users virtually through text thanks to advanced
vice experience and customer relationships (H. J. Kim, 2008; Z. Wang
AI technology. Chatbots are gaining attention and popularity in the
et al., 2017). Moreover, emotional chatbots are becoming increasingly
tourism industry (Cai, Li, & Law, 2022). Almost all major travel com­
popular and influencing customer service outcomes (Han et al., 2022).
panies (e.g., Ctrip, Qunar, and Priceline) deployed chatbots to meet
Emotional expressions are “outwardly perceptible clues suggesting
customer needs on their websites or applications. These chatbots can
the presence of an emotional state in the expresser” (van Kleef & Côté,
provide customer service, including customer booking, travel planning,
2022, p. 631). Because emotional expression plays an essential role in
pre-trip consultation, post-trip customer support, and personalized rec­
regulating interpersonal relationships, it can be utilized in
ommendations for tourist attractions (Pillai & Sivathanu, 2020). Thanks
human-computer interactions to make computers more human-like and
to their robust capabilities and cost-effectiveness, chatbots reduce a
create a more enjoyable interaction experience for users (Lopatovska &
company’s human labor burden and improve operational efficiency
Arapakis, 2011). Although chatbots cannot have real emotions (Wirtz
(Han, Yin, & Zhang, 2022).
et al., 2018), chatbots can simulate emotions through verbal cues (e.g.,
Regarding service robots in tourism services, most studies focus on
words) or non-verbal cues (e.g., emoticons, pictures) (Seeger, Pfeiffer, &
offline physical robots that provide customer services, including clean­
Heinzl, 2021). Based on the Computers as Social Actors (CASA) para­
ing rooms (Hoang & Tran, 2022), delivering luggage (H. Kim, So, &
digm, users tend to treat computer systems exhibiting human social cues
Wirtz, 2022), serving food (Liu, Wan, et al., 2022), welcoming cus­
like humans and respond socially to them (Moon, 2000; Nass & Lee,
tomers (Hou, Zhang, & Li, 2021), and check-ins (Hou et al., 2021;
2001). Thus, emotional expressions by chatbots can trigger human na­
Yoganathan, Osburg, Kunz, W, & Toporowski, 2021). By contrast, there
ture, which leads users to perceive them as human and behave socially
is little research on chatbots that broadly provide online customer ser­
in interactions with them (Chin & Yi, 2022).
vice (Cai et al., 2022; Orden-Mejía & Huertas, 2022; Jiménez-Barreto,
Second, prior studies about the influence of chatbots on customer
Rubio, & Molinillo, 2021). There are many differences between chatbots
experience in tourism have mainly focused on the moderating effects of
and physical robots in the tourism industry, even though they are both
human-related and context-related factors, ignoring the moderating
service robots (Wirtz et al., 2018). For example, a physical robot is a
roles of chatbot design features. Previous research has shown that
physical representation, while a chatbot is a virtual representation
customer gender (Zhang et al., 2022), technology anxiety (L. Li, Yin,
(Wirtz et al., 2018). The physical shape of service robots directly affects
et al., 2021), and stickiness to traditional service agents moderate
users’ interactions with them (de Kervenoael et al., 2020; Schuetzler,
chatbot use (Pillai & Sivathanu, 2020). For context, Liu, Yi, Shannon,
Giboney, Grimes, & Nunamaker, 2018). Compared to traditional ser­
and Wan (2022) found that the impact of chatbot appearance on cus­
vices, travel customers create substantial demand for self-service tech­
tomers’ perceived trust can vary with service contexts. Lv et al. (2022)
nology represented by chatbots (Samala et al., 2020). Therefore,
found that the cuteness effect of chatbots is moderated by time pressure

2
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

Table 1
Review of the research on chatbots.
Author Methodology Independent variable Underlying Boundary condition Dependent
mechanism variable
Human Chatbot Context

Pillai and Sivathanu Interviews; Perceived ease of use, Perceived Adoption Intention Stickiness to – – Actual Usage of
(2020) Survey usefulness, Perceived Trust, of Chatbots Traditional Chatbots
Technological anxiety, Perceived Travel agents
Intelligence, Anthropomorphism,
Jiménez-Barreto Interviews; Self-determined interaction Customer – – – Satisfaction
et al. (2021) Survey Experience, Attitude with the
Chatbot
Lei et al. (2021) Survey Media richness, Social presence Task attraction, – – – Reuse intention
Trust, Social
attraction
Li, Lee, Emokpae, Survey Understandability, Reliability, Post-use Technology – – Use
and Yang (2021) Responsiveness, Assurance, Interactivity confirmation, anxiety continuance
satisfaction
Melián-González Survey Performance expectancy, Effort – – – – Chatbots usage
et al. (2021) expectancy, Social influence, Hedonism, intention
Habit, Inconvenience,
Anthropomorphism, Automation,
Perceived innovativeness
Lv et al. (2022) Experimental Cuteness of Chatbots Tenderness, – – Severity, Time- Tolerance of
Performance pressure service failure
expectancy
Zhang et al. (2022) Survey Performance expectancy, Habit, Effort – Gender – – Continuance
expectancy, Social influence, Hedonic difference intention
motivation, Privacy risk, Time risk,
Anthropomorphism, Personalization
Cai et al. (2022) Interviews; Anthropomorphism Trustworthiness, – – – Usage
Experimental Intelligence, intentions
Enjoyment
Liu, Stella, et al. Experimental Chatbot Appearance Trust – – Service context Intention to use
(2022) (Hedonic vs.
Utilitarian)
Orden-Mejía and Experimental Informativeness, Accessibility, Empathy User satisfaction – – – Destination
Huertas (2022a) image
formation
Orden-Mejía and Experimental Informativeness, Accessibility, – – – – Chatbot user
Huertas (2022b) Interactivity, Empathy satisfaction
Yoon and Yu (2022) Survey Findable, Useable, Desirable, Valuable, Attitudes – – – Utilization
Accessible intention

and service failure severity. The effect of the system design of chatbots developed initially to explain expectations related to communication,
on users is a synergistic effect between individual system features of which is different from other expectations paradigms (Burgoon, 1993).
chatbots. Therefore, it is essential to understand the interaction between Expectations are prominent in interpersonal emotional communication.
design features of chatbots to reveal the complex relationship between Second, EVT has been extended to human-robot interaction behavior to
individual design features of chatbots and user perceptions (Seeger explain how robot-related expectations and violations affect user-robot
et al., 2021). interactions and evaluations (Burgoon et al., 2016; Crolic, Thomaz,
Hadi, & Stephen, 2022). Expectations are essential in chatbots
expressing emotions because general attitudes about whether AI should
2.3. Expectancy violations theory (EVT)
express emotions will likely vary (Rapp et al., 2021; Urakami, Moore,
Sutthithatip, & Park, 2019). Third, EVT may be preferable to other
EVT provides us with an appropriate theoretical lens to understand
expectation paradigms, such as expectation confirmation regarding
the impact of emotional expressions by chatbots on customer satisfac­
counterintuitive predictions (Burgoon et al., 2016).
tion. EVT concerns how people form and react to expectations about the
According to EVT (Burgoon, 1993), two types of factors influence
interaction process (Burgoon & Jones, 1976). EVT assumes that people
expectations: communicator and relationship. Communicator charac­
interact with expectations for human or non-human verbal or
teristics imply participative actors’ features, such as demographics,
non-verbal behavior (Burgoon, 1993; Burgoon et al., 2016). Communi­
appearance, and personality. Relationship factors refer to the relation­
cation expectancies are “cognitions about the anticipated communica­
ship of communicators to one another, including familiarity and simi­
tive behavior of specific others” (Burgoon & Walther, 1990, p. 236).
larity (Burgoon, 1993). In our research context, we argue that customers
These expectations are violated when someone does not behave as ex­
generally have affective expectations for chatbots. When chatbots ex­
pected (Afifi & Metts, 1998). Once expectations are violated, people
press appropriate emotions, customers’ negative expectancy violation
shift their attention to the meaning of the violation. Based on this
decreases (even up to positive expectancy violation), and expectancy
violation behavior meaning, expectation violation can be perceived as
violation, in turn, affects customer satisfaction. Moreover, communi­
positive and negative, which in turn affects the communication process
cator (i.e., customers and chatbots) characteristics and relationships
and attitude (Burgoon et al., 2016). EVT believes that expectation vio­
influence such communication expectations. For the communicator
lations tend to have a positive impact when they are positive, i.e., things
characteristics, we considered the goal orientation of customers and
are better than expected; conversely, negative expectation violations, i.
chatbot avatars; for the relationship characteristics, we considered the
e., things are not as good as expected, can negatively affect various
relationship type between customers and chatbots (assistant vs. friend).
outcomes, including satisfaction and purchase intention.
EVT is appropriate as a theoretical basis for our study. First, EVT was

3
J. Zhang et al.
2.4. Emotional expressions and customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction implies a customer’s attitude toward the ser­
vice interaction they have just experienced and is an essential perfor­
mance indicator of customer service encounters (Barger & Grandey,
2006). As chatbots gradually replace human employees in customer
service, service satisfaction will likely be reduced despite lower labor
costs and increased efficiency for companies (Ruan & Mezei, 2022;
Zhao, Cui, Hu, Dai, & Zhou, 2022). Part of the reason is that the pro­
liferation of chatbots has made the mutual concern of human employees
and customers disappear (Kozinets & Gretzel, 2021). Service research
has repeatedly shown that an employee’s ability to manage their emo­
tions (especially displaying positive emotions) is often correlated with
satisfaction (Z. Wang et al., 2017; Delcourt, Gremler, van Riel, & van
Birgelen, 2013). According to the theory of affect infusion, an in­
dividual’s emotional state can influence social judgment (Forgas, 1995).
If the service provider expresses concern for the customer through
emotions, this emotional capacity of the service provider produces a
positive emotional state in the customer, and makes the customer
perceive higher satisfaction with the service encounter (Delcourt et al.,
2013). Furthermore, based on the CASA paradigm (Moon, 2000; Nass &
Lee, 2001), the effect of emotional expressions on satisfaction should be
similar for both anthropomorphic chatbots and human employees.
Therefore, hypothesis 1 is proposed:
H1. Emotional expressions of concern by chatbots enhance customer
satisfaction.
2.5. The mediation effect of expectancy violations
Previous research has shown that customers have competency-
related efficiency expectations toward chatbots (Crolic et al., 2022; Lv
et al., 2022). We believe that customers also have affective expectations
for chatbots. First, customers generally resist the services provided by
AI-based chatbots as opposed to human employees. In addition to the
poor problem-solving ability of AI, there is also the low emotional
experience that AI creates with customers (Kyung & Kwon, 2022; Lon­
goni, Bonezzi, & Morewedge, 2019; Zhao et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022).
Second, customers have affective expectations of human employees,
which are primarily human employees displaying positive emotions (e.
g., service with a smile) (Houston, Grandey, & Sawyer, 2018) and
recognizing customer emotions in specific contexts (e.g., service re­
covery) (Becker et al., 2022). According to CASA (Moon, 2000; Nass &
Lee, 2001), the expectations for anthropomorphic chatbots should be
similar to those for humans. Third, according to self-determination
theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020), individuals require relatedness when
interacting with technology. Relatedness is the need for individuals to
connect with others (i.e., to care and be cared for). When chatbots meet
this need, it positively influences the customer’s service evaluation
(Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2021). Customers have an affective expectation
of chatbots and expect to be concerned for them. Therefore, customers’
expectation violations are reduced when chatbots express emotional
concern. Expectancy violation has been widely shown to affect customer
satisfaction (Oliver, 1980; Oliver & Swan, 1989; Zeithaml, Parasura­
man, & Berry, 1990). Hypotheses 2 and 3 are proposed:
H2. Emotional expressions of concern by chatbots diminish expec­
tancy violation.
H3. Expectancy violation mediates the positive relationship between
emotional expressions of concern by chatbots and customer satisfaction.
2.6. The moderating role of customer’ goal orientation
According to EVT (Burgoon, 1993), communicator characteristics
affect expectations. We first considered the moderating effect of
customer goal orientation. Consumers evaluate the services provided by
4
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
service providers in terms of process quality and outcome quality
(Gronroos, 1984). While both are essential components of service
assessment, different consumers have varying consumer goals (Iaco­
bucci & Ostrom, 1993). Process-oriented and outcome-oriented goals
shift the customer’s attention to different judgment dimensions of the
service evaluation (Güntürkün, Haumann, & Mikolon, 2020).
Highly process-oriented customers pay close attention to the intan­
gible aspects of service delivery, including interactive atmosphere and
social functions (de Ruyter & Wetzels, 1998; Kirmani & Campbell,
2004). They focus on whether the service provider is committed to build
a good relationship with them and provide an enjoyable and satisfying
process (de Ruyter & Wetzels, 1998). When interacting with chatbots,
customers with high process-oriented goals pay more attention to the
social functions and atmosphere created by chatbots; therefore, they
have more affective expectations of chatbots. Customers with low
process-oriented goals do not focus on the emotional experience chat­
bots offer, so they have fewer affective expectations from chatbots. Low
process-oriented customers have similar perceptions of expectations
being violated regardless of whether the chatbot expresses emotions.
Highly outcome-oriented customers are focused on the tangible as­
pects of service delivery, including task functionality and core deliver­
ables of the service (de Ruyter & Wetzels, 1998; Kirmani & Campbell,
2004). Customers with high outcome-oriented goals concentrate on
whether the service provider is competent in delivering a satisfactory
result (de Ruyter & Wetzels, 1998). In customer interaction with chat­
bots, customers with high outcome-oriented goals pay more attention to
a chatbot’s ability to solve customer problems than the warmth intro­
duced by emotional expressions. Customers with high outcome-oriented
goals have fewer affective expectations of chatbots; conversely, cus­
tomers with low outcome-oriented goals will have more affective ex­
pectations. This means high outcome-oriented customers have similar
perceptions of expectations being violated regardless of whether the
chatbot expresses emotions. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is proposed:
H4. Customer goal orientation (process orientation and outcome
orientation) moderates the negative relationship between emotional
expressions by chatbots and expectancy violations. (a) Customers with
low process-oriented goals attenuate the negative relationship between
emotional expressions by chatbots and expectancy violations compared
to customers with high process-oriented goals. (b) Customers with high
outcome-oriented goals attenuate the negative relationship between
emotional expressions by chatbots and expectancy violations compared
to customers with low outcome-oriented goals.
2.7. The moderating role of the human-likeness of chatbot’ avatars
Chatbots act as communicators, and appearance characteristics (i.e.,
avatars) are moderating factors we consider. In recent years, avatars
have been defined as “digital entities with anthropomorphic appear­
ance, controlled by a human or software, that are able to interact” (p.
71) (Miao et al., 2022). For chatbots, avatars are static, graphical rep­
resentations of chatbots (Diederich, Brendel, Morana, & Kolbe, 2022).
As an essential anthropomorphic visual cue for chatbots (Seeger et al.,
2021), the avatar influences user perceptions and evaluations of chat­
bots. For example, the gender, dress, and ethnicity of avatars can in­
fluence perceived authenticity and engagement (Esmark Jones,
Hancock, Kazandjian, & Voorhees, 2022); the human-likeness of the
avatar can influence repurchase intentions (Fota, Wagner, Roeding, &
Schramm-Klein, 2022); the familiarity of avatars can moderate the
relationship between humanization and eeriness (S. W. Song & Shin,
2022). In particular, avatars that are more human-like in form may elicit
higher social expectations from users (Esmark Jones et al., 2022). The
reason for this is that the customer first notices the avatar of a chatbot
before formal interactions with it (Kull, Romero, & Monahan, 2021).
The initial impression of chatbots directly influences the subsequent
expectations. Human-like avatars may allow people to perceive chatbots
J. Zhang et al.
as having a higher cognitive ability and emotional intelligence (Miao
et al., 2022). Both are essential for acceptance by consumers (X. Song,
Xu, & Zhao, 2022). More human-like avatars appear to increase
pre-interaction user expectations of chatbots’ efficiency performance
(Crolic et al., 2022). Therefore, this manuscript argues that, in addition
to efficiency performance expectations, users will have higher affective
expectations for more human-like avatars before interaction. We can
infer that when avatars are more human-like, chatbots without
emotional expression can lead to more significant expectancy violations.
Under the condition of the high human-like degree of avatars, the ex­
pectancy violation of customers is higher if chatbots do not express
emotions. Then when chatbots express emotions, expectancy violation
will be reduced more. Therefore, hypothesis 5 is proposed:
H5. The human-likeness of chatbot avatars moderates the negative
relationship between emotional expressions by chatbots and expectancy
violation; High human-likeness of avatars made this negative relation­
ship more strongly than low human-likeness of avatars.
2.8. The moderating role of the relationship type between customers and
chatbots
According to EVT (Burgoon, 1993), the relationship between com­
municators is an essential factor influencing expectations. In customer
interaction with chatbots, we consider the relationship type (assistant
vs. friend) between customers and chatbots as the final moderating
factor. In providing services to customers, the role played by the com­
pany influences the consumer’s reaction (H. C. Kim & Kramer, 2015). As
company representatives, chatbots can play different roles and influence
the user experience (Youn & Jin, 2021). When chatbots act as ‘assis­
tants’, they are conceptualized as useful machines that help humans to
accomplish tasks; therefore, the ‘competence’ dimension of chatbots is
more prominent. Chatbots in the role of ‘friends’ are conceptualized as
providing emotional support to users and acting as trustworthy personal
companions for humans; therefore, the ‘sincerity’ dimension is more
prominent (Dautenhahn, 2007; Sundar, Jung, Waddell, & Kim, 2017).
The ‘friends’ label and the ‘assistants’ label have been used differently to
elicit positive comments from users about the technology. For example,
Sundar et al. predicted that the ‘assistant’ label might trigger the ‘helper’
heuristic, causing users to evaluate positively the technology that helps
them accomplish their tasks; similarly, the ‘friends’ label may trigger the
‘social presence’ heuristic, causing users to evaluate positively the
technology that accompanies them (Sundar et al., 2017). The relation­
ship type between consumers and chatbots can influence consumer
perception of brand personality (competence vs. sincerity) (Youn & Jin,
2021). This relationship type can also moderate perceived body image’s
Fig. 1. Research model.
5
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
effect on self-esteem and purchase behavior (Ameen, Cheah, & Kumar,
2022). In our study context, when chatbots act as ‘friends’, customers
focus on its emotional support features and have more affective expec­
tations. Once chatbots do not have emotional support, there is a more
significant expectancy violation. When chatbots do not provide
emotional support, customers have higher expectancy violations. Once
chatbots provide emotional support, customers have much less expec­
tancy violation. Conversely, when chatbots act as ‘assistants’, customers
are primarily concerned with whether they can help them accomplish
their tasks. In this case, whether chatbots provide emotional support
does not significantly affect the customer’s expectancy violation.
Therefore, hypothesis 6 is proposed:
H6. The type of relationship between customers and chatbots (friends
vs. assistants) moderates the negative relationship between emotional
expressions and expectancy violations. The relationship type of assis­
tants (vs. friends) attenuates the negative relationship between
emotional expressions and expectancy violations.
Our research model is presented in Fig. 1.
3. Study context and overview of studies
To understand how emotional expressions of concern by chatbots
affect customer expectations and satisfaction, we conducted three
scenario-based online experiments. We first created a freely accessible
online travel service website (see Appendix A). Although the travel
website appears to provide customers with airline reservations, hotel
bookings, and travel tips, none of these functions were available. We
added an AI-powered chatbot to this travel website. The function of this
chatbot is to recommend tourist attractions customized to customer
preferences. We developed this chatbot using Google’s AI development
platform, Dialogflow (Essentials Edition), which provides a powerful
natural language understanding engine to process and interpret natural
language input. We integrated this chatbot into the main page of our
travel website to provide our customers with recommendations for
tourist attractions. The entire conversational interaction included three
steps. First, the chatbot asks the customer which city they want to visit.
Then, the chatbot asks the customer about their travel situation and
preferences, including the number of travelers, fare requirements, and
likes and dislikes. Finally, the chatbot recommends a tourist attraction in
the city for the customer based on the customer’s expressed preferences.
We conducted three studies on this travel website to test different
parts of the theoretical framework. Study 1 provided preliminary evi­
dence for the effect of emotional expressions of concern on expectancy
violation and customer satisfaction (H1 and H2) and validates potential
mechanisms influencing customer satisfaction (H3). We validated the
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

moderating role of customer characteristics (i.e., customer’s goal Table 3

orientation) through Study 1 (H4). We also examined the moderating Conversational emotion stimuli in Study1, 2, 3.
effect of the human likeness of the chatbot avatar on expectancy viola­ # Control Emotional Expressions of Concern
tion through Study 2 (H5). Finally, Study 3 examined the moderating
1 The picnic should ensure hygiene, The picnic should ensure hygiene, and
effect of the relationship type between customers and chatbots on ex­ and try not to bring food that is easily try not to bring food that is easily
pectancy violations (H6). Table 2 provides an overview of the empirical spoiled. Dietary problems will affect spoiled. I’m worried that dietary
research. your subsequent travel experience. problems will affect your subsequent
travel experience
.
4. Study 1
2 There are very few taxis around the There are very few taxis around the
scenic spot at night. It is difficult for scenic spot at night. I am afraid it is
Study 1 examined (1) whether emotional expressions of concern by you to get a regular taxi. difficult for you to get a regular taxi
chatbots can reduce expectancy violation and increase customer satis­ .
faction, (2) whether expectancy violation mediates the effect of the 3 If you buy tiger food to feed the tiger, If you buy tiger food to feed the tiger,
emotional expressions on customer satisfaction, and (3) the moderating keep your distance. You must keep keep your distance. I’m concerned
effect of the goal orientation. We expect that when customers are more you safe. about whether you can keep you safe
.
process-oriented or less outcome-oriented, expectancy violations will be
4 Russian cabaret shows are only Russian cabaret shows are only
significantly lower; when customers are less process-oriented or more
available in winter and summer, you available in winter and summer, I am
outcome-oriented, there will be no significant difference in expectancy may not be able to go. pity that you may not be able to go
violations. .
5 The space in the museum is not very The space in the museum is not very
4.1. Manipulation stimuli large and there are many people. It large and there are many people.I am
will affect your viewing experience. worried that it will affect viewing
experience
To manipulate the emotional expressions, we selected emotions .
expressing concern (e.g., I’m worried, I’m feeling pity, I’m concerned, or
I’m afraid). These emotions were expressed in text and emoticons, and
the timing of the expression was the chatbot’s reply to the customer research platform in China for providing paid data collection services.
when they stated their preferences. As computer-mediated communi­ We used G-Power (α = 0.05, power = 0.80) to test the minimum sample
cation, online text communication is as emotionally involved as face-to- size (Zhou et al., 2022). This value was 128; therefore, 141 samples were
face communication (Derks, Fischer, & Bos, 2008). Emoticons can be sufficient. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions
applied to express and reinforce emotions (Walther & D’Addario, 2001). between the emotion and control groups. The demographic profile of the
We follow the experimental treatment of Yin, Bond, and Zhang (2021). participants in the three studies is shown in Appendix B.
For the group without emotional expressions (control group), the chat­ First, all participants were informed that the travel website was a
bot expressed only factual or suggested information; for the group with niche in China that provides a recommendation service for tourist at­
emotional expressions (treatment group), based on the control group, tractions. Participants were then told they would visit the travel site and
the chatbot expressed its emotion directly using text at the beginning interact with a chatbot that could recommend a tailored tourist attrac­
and reinforcing the emotion using a corresponding emoji at the end. A tion (see Appendix C). At this point, we showed all participants the
portion of the stimulus material for the control and treatment groups is avatar of the chatbot with which they were about to interact (see Ap­
shown in Table 3. pendix D). In the following step, participants indicated their pre-
interaction affective expectations regarding the chatbot’s upcoming
4.2. Design and procedure performance on six seven-point Likert items (‘I expect the chatbot to: be
sensitive to my emotions and feelings; to understand my emotions from
Experiment 1 was conducted in a between-subjects design the conversation; to understand my emotional state; to express appro­
(emotional expression: control vs. emotion). We recruited 141 (66.7% priate emotions; to show emotions that conform to the norms of
female, M age = 25.48) participants from the Credamo platform, a expression; to express acceptable emotions’, α = 0.87; adapted from
(van Kleef & Côté, 2007; Wong & Law, 2002)). After the interaction was
Table 2 completed, participants assessed the post-interaction chatbot’s
Overview of the empirical research. emotional performance based on six seven-point Likert scale items
Study Objectives of the Manipulation Moderator Hypotheses corresponding to the pre-interaction items (‘I felt the chatbot: was sen­
study variable tested sitive to my emotions and feelings; understood my emotions from the
1 Testing the main Emotional Goal H1, H2, H3,
conversation; understood my emotional state; expressed appropriate
effect of emotional expression orientation H4 emotions; showed emotions that conform to the norms of expression;
expression, the expressed acceptable emotions’; α = 0.90). To ensure the success of our
mediation of manipulation, The participants were asked a manipulation check item in
expectancy
both conditions (‘In your opinion, to what extent did the chatbot use
violation, and the
moderation of goal emotions to express concern for you during the previous conversation?‘).
orientation Finally, participants rated their customer satisfaction (α = 0.83) (Barger
2 Testing the main Emotional Human- H1, H2, H5 & Grandey, 2006) and belief about computer emotion. Details of all
effect of emotional expression and likeness of measurements are shown in Appendix E.
expression and the human-likeness avatars
moderation of of avatars
human-likeness of 4.3. Results
avatars.
3 Testing the main Emotional Relationship H1, H2, H6 To measure expectancy violation, we indicated each participant’s
effect of emotional expression and type
expectancy violation by subtracting the post-interaction expectation
expression and the relationship type
moderation of average score from the pre-interaction assessment average score (Crolic
relationship type. et al., 2022; Madden, Little, & Dolich, 1979). Pre-interaction

6
J. Zhang et al.
expectations for all studies are presented in Appendix F. We first con­
ducted a manipulation check to confirm the validity of the emotional
expression manipulation. The independent sample t-test showed par­
ticipants could perceive chatbots express more emotions in the emotion
condition than in the control condition (M emotion = 5.87, standard
deviation [SD] emotion = 1.469, M control = 4.40, SD control = 1.444,
t = − 6.007, p < 0.001). These results suggest that our manipulation was
successful.
To test the effect of the chatbot’s emotional expression on customer
satisfaction and expectancy violation, we conducted two one-way ana­
lyses of covariance (ANCOVA). We used emotional expression by chat­
bots as the independent variable, customer satisfaction, and expectancy
violation as the dependent variables, and age, gender, experience, error
(whether there were errors during the conversation), and belief about
computer emotion (the degree to which the customer believed the
computer could have its own emotions) as covariates. The results
showed significant main effects for both models. Compared with the
control condition, customer satisfaction was significantly higher in the
emotion condition (M emotion = 6.220, SD emotion = 1.030, M control
= 5.671, SD control = 0.756, F (1, 139) = 10.04, p < 0.01). Expectancy
violation was significantly lower in the emotion condition (M emotion
= 0.115, SD emotion = 0.696, M control = 0.452, SD control = 0.805, F
(1, 139) = 5.804, p < 0.05). These findings support H 1 and H 2.
To examine the mediating effect of expectancy violation between
emotional expressions of concern and customer satisfaction, we con­
ducted mediation analyses using PROCESS (model 4) with 5000 boot­
strap samples (Hayes, 2017). Emotional expression was treated as the
independent variable, customer satisfaction was used as the dependent
variable, expectancy violation was treated as the mediator, and age,
gender, experience, error, and belief about computer emotion were used
as covariates. The results revealed a significant positive indirect effect of
emotional expressions on customer satisfaction via expectancy violation
(effect = 0.103, BootSE = 0.070, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.0043,
0.2711]). This finding supports H 3.
To determine whether the interaction between emotional expres­
sions by chatbots and customer goal orientation would affect customer
satisfaction through expectancy violation, we conducted a moderated
mediation analysis using PROCESS (model 7) with 5000 resamples
(Hayes, 2017). The independent variable was the emotional expressions
of concern, the mediating variable was expectancy violation, and the
dependent variable was customer satisfaction.
When process orientation was used as the moderator, there was a
significant indirect effect on expectancy violation (index = 0.075,
BootSE = 0.054, 95% CI [0.0001, 0.0173]). The interaction between
emotional expressions and process orientation significantly impacted
expectancy violation (effect = − 0.224, t = − 2.090, p = 0.038 < 0.05)
(Fig. 2). For customers with a higher process orientation (effect = 0.195,
BootSE = 0.195, 95% CI [0.0222, 0.4494]), emotional expressions
Fig. 2. Interaction effects of emotional expressions and process orientation on
expectancy violation (Study 1).
7
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
significantly decreased expectancy violation (β = − 0.581, t = − 3.246, p
< 0.01), with significant mediation through expectancy violation. For
customers with a lower process orientation (effect = 0.020, BootSE =
0.080, 95% CI [− 0.1137, 0.2200]), emotional expressions had no effect
on expectancy violation (β = − 0.059, t = − 0.335, p = 0.74), with
insignificant mediation through expectancy violation. These findings
support H 4 (a).
Next, when outcome orientation was used as the moderator, there
was a significant indirect effect on expectancy violation (index =
− 0.065, BootSE = 0.045, 95% CI [− 0.1695, − 0.0110]). The interaction
between emotional expressions and outcome orientation significantly
impacted expectancy violation (β = 0.193, t = 2.090, p = 0.039 < 0.05)
(Fig. 3). For customers with a lower outcome orientation (effect = 0.216,
BootSE = 0.130, 95% CI [0.0246, 0.5191]), emotional expressions
significantly decreased expectancy violation (β = − 0.644, t = − 3.100, p
< 0.01), with significant mediation through expectancy violation. For
customers with a higher outcome orientation (effect = 0.020, BootSE =
0.068, 95% CI [− 0.1066, 0.1708]), emotional expressions had no effect
on expectancy violation (effect = − 0.058, t = − 0.335, p = 0.74), with
insignificant mediation through expectancy violation. This finding
supports H 4 (b). The results of the mediation and moderated mediation
analyzes of all studies are presented in Appendix G.
4.4. Discussion
Study 1 suggests that the emotional expression of concern can in­
crease customer satisfaction, and reduced expectancy violation is the
underlying mechanism. No significant difference in expectancy viola­
tion occurred when customers were low process-oriented (versus high
process-oriented) or high outcome-oriented (versus low outcome-
oriented). Thus H1, H2, H3, H4(a), and H4(b) are supported.
5. Study 2
Study 2 was mainly conducted to test the moderating effect of the
human-likeness of chatbot avatars. We expected expectancy violations
to decrease when the chatbot avatar was less human-like. The expec­
tancy violation will decrease further when the chatbot avatar is more
human-like.
5.1. Pretest
We pretested avatars to select two with a significant difference in
humanoid degree and to test whether a more humanoid avatar would
significantly affect affective expectation. Eighty-nine participants from
the Creadamo platform completed the pretest and received monetary
rewards. All participants were randomly assigned to one of two condi­
tions: (1) a high human-like avatar condition and (2) a low human-like
Fig. 3. Interaction effects of emotional expressions and outcome orientation on
expectancy violation (Study 1).
J. Zhang et al.
avatar condition. Each condition showed a picture of a chatbot avatar
(see Appendix D). We asked participants to assume that they would
interact with the chatbot and to assess the degree to which the avatar
was human-like and their pre-interaction affective expectations. The
degree of human-likeness of the avatar was measured by asking, “Please
rate the degree to which the chatbot avatar is human-like”; pre-
interaction affective expectations were measured using an adapted
scale consistent with Study 1. Independent samples t-test revealed a
significant difference in the degree of avatar human-likeness between
the two conditions (M high = 6.50, SD high = 0.804, M low = 3.19, SD
low = 1.583, t = − 12.206, p < 0.001). Participants had significantly
higher affective expectations of the chatbot in the high human-like
avatar condition than in the low human-like avatar condition (M high
= 5.84, SD high = 0.651, M low = 5.15, SD low = 1.171, t = − 3.391, p
= 0.012 < 0.05).
5.2. Main study design and procedure
Study 2 was conducted in a two x two (emotional expression: control
vs. emotion; avatar human-like: high vs. low) between-subjects design.
We recruited 183 (59% female, M age = 26.12) participants from the
Credamo platform. We used G-Power (α = 0.05, power = 0.80) (Zhou
et al., 2022) to test the minimum sample size. This value was 179;
therefore, 183 samples were sufficient. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of four conditions. The manipulated stimuli for emotion
in Study 2 were the same as in Study 1.
Consistent with Study 1, all participants were informed that the
travel website was a niche travel website in China that could provide a
recommendation service for tourist attractions. Participants were then
told that they were going to visit the travel website and interact with the
chatbot to get a suitable tourist attraction. Similarly, we presented
participants with avatars (human-likeness high vs. low) of the chatbot
with which they were about to interact. Finally, participants completed
a questionnaire that included pre-interaction affective expectations (α =
0.86) (van Kleef & Côté, 2007; Wong & Law, 2002), post-interaction
emotional performance (α = 0.90), customer satisfaction (α = 0.83)
(Barger & Grandey, 2006), and manipulation check items about the
emotional expressions and the avatar.
5.3. Results
To measure expectancy violation, we expressed each participant’s
expectancy violation by subtracting the post-interaction expectation
average score from the pre-interaction assessment average score (Crolic
et al., 2022; Madden et al., 1979). We first performed a manipulation
check to confirm the validity of the emotional expression and avatar
manipulation. The independent sample t-test showed participants could
perceive chatbots express more emotions in the emotion condition than
in the control condition (M emotion = 6.04, SD emotion = 1.492, M
control = 4.56, SD control = 1.276, t = − 7.254, p < 0.001), and that the
avatar in the high human-like avatar condition was perceived as more
human-like by customers than the low human-like avatar condition (M
high = 6.58, SD high = 0.788, M low = 2.63, SD low = 1.582, t =
− 21.41, p < 0.001). This finding suggests that our manipulation was
successful.
A two-way ANCOVA was conducted with the chatbot’s emotional
expressions and the human-likeness of the chatbot avatar as indepen­
dent variables, customer satisfaction as dependent variables, and age,
gender, experience, errors, and belief about computer emotions as
covariates. The results indicated that only the main effect of emotional
expression was significant. Compared with the control condition,
customer satisfaction was significantly higher in the emotion condition
(M emotion = 6.165, SD emotion = 0.655, M control = 5.837, SD
control = 0.821, F (1, 181) = 4.951, p < 0.05).
A two-way ANCOVA was conducted with the emotional expressions
by chatbots and the human-likeness of chatbot avatars as independent
8
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
variables, expectancy violation as dependent variables, and age, gender,
experience, errors, and belief about computer emotions as covariates.
The main effect of emotional expression was significant. Expectancy
violation was significantly lower in the emotion condition (M emotion
= − 0.142, SD emotion = 0.735, M control = 0.426, SD control = 0.963,
F (1, 181) = 17.41, p < 0.01). The test also revealed that there was a
significant interaction between the emotional expressions and the
human-likeness of the avatar on expectancy violation [F (1, 179) =
2.835, p = 0.094 < 0.1] (Fig. 4). When the human-likeness of the avatar
was low, the expectancy violation was significantly lower in the emotion
condition [M emotion = − 0.007, SD emotion = 0.802, M control =
0.270, SD control = 0.828, F (1, 89) = 3.854, p = 0.053 < 0.1]. When
the human-likeness of the avatar was high, the expectancy violation was
more significantly lower in the emotion condition [M emotion =
− 0.216, SD emotion = 0.663, M control = 0.582, SD control = 1.068, F
(1, 90) = 18.701, p < 0.001].
To determine whether the interaction between emotional expres­
sions and the human-likeness of the chatbot’s avatar affects customer
satisfaction through expectancy violation, we conducted a moderated
mediation analysis using the PROCESS (model 7) (Hayes, 2017) in
which the emotional expressions of concern used as the independent
variable, expectancy violation used as the mediator, and customer
satisfaction used as the dependent variable. When the human-likeness of
the avatar was served as the moderator, the results revealed a significant
indirect effect of expectancy violation (index = 0.053, BootSE = 0.036,
90% CI [0.0011, 0.1169]). When the human-likeness of the avatar was
low (effect = 0.040, BootSE = 0.025, 90% CI [0.0041, 0.0839]),
emotional expression significantly decreased expectancy violation (β =
− 0.158, t = − 1.790, p < 0.1), with a significant mediation through
expectancy violation. When the human-likeness of the avatar was high
(effect = 0.094, BootSE = 0.034, 95% CI [0.0298, 0.1621]), emotional
expressions significantly decreased expectancy violation (β = − 0.368, t
= − 4.150, p < 0.001), with significant mediation through expectancy
violation. These findings supported H 5.
5.4. Discussion
The results of Study 2 demonstrate that emotional expressions by
chatbots can improve customer satisfaction and reduce expectancy
violation. Moreover, compared to the low human-like avatar, expec­
tancy violation was reduced more when the human-likeness of the
avatar was high. Thus H1, H2, and H5 are supported.
6. Study 3
The purpose of Study 3 was to examine the moderating effect of the
relationship type between customers and chatbots. We expect that
Fig. 4. Influences of emotional expressions and human-likeness of the avatar
on expectancy violation (Study 2).
J. Zhang et al.
expectancy violations would be significantly lower when the relation­
ship type is ‘friends’, and that when the relationship type is ‘assistants’,
there would be no significant difference in expectancy violation.
6.1. Manipulation stimuli
The manipulation stimuli for emotional expressions were the same as
in Study 1. We conducted a manipulation to understand the impact of
the relationship type between customers and chatbots. Following the
approach of Youn and Jin (2021) approach. We used different
self-introductions and conversational styles of chatbots to highlight the
different identities of them as a “friend” or an “assistant”. To be more
specific, in the two manipulation groups, the chatbot would directly
introduce that it is a “friend” or an “assistant” when making an intro­
duction. Moreover, the chatbot would talk to participants in a public,
colloquial, and informal style when playing a “friend” role (e.g.,
showing willingness to listen to the customer and using words like “let’s”
to close the distance with the customer). In contrast, the chatbot would
talk to participants in an official, formal style (e.g., showing its goal and
effort to help the customer) when playing an “assistant” role. Appendix
C shows more detailed manipulation process.
6.2. Design and procedure
Study 3 was conducted in a two x two between-subjects design
(emotional expression: control vs. emotion; friendship type: friend vs.
assistant). We recruited 185 (61% female, M age = 25.81) participants
from the Credamo platform. We used G-Power (α = 0.05, power = 0.80)
(Zhou et al., 2022) to test the minimum sample size. This value was 179;
therefore, 185 samples were sufficient. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of four conditions.
The procedure of Study 3 was similar to that of Study 1. All partic­
ipants were informed that the travel website was a niche travel website
in China that could provide travel attractions recommendation services.
Next, the chatbot was introduced as a friend or an assistant. Participants
then indicated their pre-interaction affective expectations (α = 0.87;
adapted from (van Kleef & Côté, 2007; Wong & Law, 2002)) based on
the presented avatar and interacted with the chatbot. Finally, partici­
pants completed questionnaires that included post-interaction
emotional performance (α = 0.89), customer satisfaction (0.79)
(Barger & Grandey, 2006), and manipulation check item about
emotional expression. We also asked participants how much they
considered the chatbot a friend and an assistant by the following two
manipulation check items (Youn & Jin, 2021)[(1) to what extent would
they consider the chatbot a friend? and (2) to what extent would you
consider the chatbot an assistant?].
6.3. Results
As in the previous two studies, we expressed each expectancy
violation by subtracting the post-interaction expectation average score
from the pre-interaction assessment average score (Crolic et al., 2022;
Madden et al., 1979). First, we conducted a manipulation check to
confirm the validity of the manipulation regarding emotional expres­
sions. The independent sample t-test showed participants could perceive
chatbots express more emotions in the emotion condition than in the
control condition (M emotion = 6.13, SD emotion = 1.150, M control =
4.33, SD control = 1.715, t = − 8.360, p < 0.001). Next, we performed a
manipulation check to confirm the validity of the manipulation
regarding the friendship type. The independent sample t-test revealed a
significant difference between a friend and assistant conditions (M
friend = 5.27, SD friend = 1.146, M assistant = 4.76, SD assistant =
1.500, t = − 2.640, p < 0.01 for the first question; M friend = 5.29, SD
friend = 1.188, M assistant = 4.70, SD assistant = 1.538, t = 2.895, p =
0.019 < 0.05 for the second question). Therefore, all manipulations
were successful.
9
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
A two-way ANCOVA was conducted with the emotional expressions
by chatbots and the relationship type as independent variables,
customer satisfaction as dependent variables, and age, gender, experi­
ence, errors, and belief about computer emotions as covariates. Only the
main effect of emotional expression was significant. Customer satisfac­
tion was significantly higher in the emotion condition (M emotion =
6.174, SD emotion = 0.660, M control = 5.942, SD control = 0.691, F (1,
183) = 5.416, p < 0.05).
A two-way ANCOVA was conducted with the emotional expressions
by chatbots and the relationship type as independent variables, expec­
tancy violation as dependent variables, and age, gender, experience,
errors, and belief about computer emotions as covariates. The results
indicated that the main effect of emotional expression was significant.
Compared with the control condition, expectancy violation was signif­
icantly lower in the emotion condition (M emotion = − 0.092, SD
emotion = 0.667, M control = 0.276, SD control = 0.786, F (1, 183) =
9.494, p < 0.01). The results also indicated that there was a significant
interaction between the emotional expressions and the relationship type
on expectancy violation [F (1, 181) = 3.937, p = 0.049 < 0.05] (Fig. 5).
When the relationship type was assistant, the expectancy violation was
significantly lower in the emotion condition [M emotion = − 0.195, SD
emotion = 0.711, M control = 0.376, SD control = 0.681, F (1, 92) =
15.801, p < 0.001]. When the relationship type was friend, there was no
significant difference in expectancy violation between the emotion
condition and the control condition [M emotion = 0.015, SD emotion =
0.607, M control = 0.174, SD control = 0.876, F (1, 89) = 1.009, p =
0.318].
To determine whether the interaction between emotional expres­
sions by chatbots and the relationship type affects customer satisfaction
through expectancy violation, we conducted a moderated mediation
analysis using PROCESS (model 7) with 5000 resamples (Hayes, 2017)
with the emotional expressions of concern as the independent variable,
customer satisfaction as the dependent variable, and expectancy viola­
tion as the mediator variable, the relationship type was used as the
moderator variable. There was a significant indirect effect of expectancy
violation (index = − 0.084, BootSE = 0.054, 95% CI [− 0.2075,
− 0.0001]). When the relationship type was ‘assistant’ (effect = 0.107,
BootSE = 0.051, 95% CI [0.0261, 0.2253]), emotional expressions
significantly decreased expectancy violation (β = − 0.533, t = − 3.578, p
< 0.001), with significant mediation through expectancy violation.
When the relationship type was ‘friend’ (effect = 0.023, BootSE = 0.036,
95% CI [− 0.0411, 0.1051]), emotional expressions had no effect on
expectancy violation (β = − 0.114, t = − 0.754, p = 0.45), with insig­
nificant mediation through expectancy violation. Although the moder­
ated mediation results of Study 3 were significant, the experiment
results were precisely the opposite of our hypothesis. Therefore, H6 is
refuted.
Fig. 5. Influences of emotional expressions and relationship type on expec­
tancy violation (Study 3).
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

To investigate why Study 3 refuted the hypothesis, we conducted an Table 4

independent samples t-test to compare the pre-interaction and post- Summary of results.
interaction affective expectations of the friend and assistant condi­ Hypotheses
tions. The results showed that the pre-interaction affective expectations
H1: Emotional expressions of
in the friend condition were significantly higher than that in the assis­ concern by chatbots enhance
tant condition (M friend = 5.603, SD friend = 0.806, M assistant = customer satisfaction.
5.359, SD assistant = 0.854, t = − 1.990, p = 0.048 < 0.05); however, H2: Emotional expressions of
the post-interaction emotional performance in the friend condition was concern by chatbots diminish
expectancy violation.
also higher than that in the assistant condition (M friend = 5.500, SD H3: Expectancy violation
friend = 0.747, M assistant = 5.270, SD assistant = 0.986, t = − 1.795, p mediates the relationship
= 0.074 < 0.1). We compared the post-interaction emotional perfor­ between emotional expressions
mance in the friend and assistant conditions when chatbots did not ex­ and customer satisfaction.
H4(a): Customers with low
press emotions. The results of the independent samples t-test showed
process-oriented goals
that the post-interaction emotional performance in the friend condition attenuate the negative
was significantly higher than that in the assistant condition (M friend = relationship between
5.300, SD friend = 0.643, M assistant = 4.940, SD assistant = 0.982, t = emotional expressions and
− 2.102, p = 0.039 < 0.05). The results of the pre-interaction expecta­ expectancy violations.
H4(b): Customers with high
tions and post-interaction performance for the four conditions are pre­ outcome-oriented goals
sented in Appendix H. Therefore, we believe that the results of Study 3 attenuate the negative
refuted the hypothesis because, even when chatbots do not use text and relationship between
emoticons to express emotions directly, they make customers perceive emotional expressions and
expectancy violations.
more emotions due to their social-oriented interactions. Previous liter­
H5: The more human-likeness of
ature has shown that a social-oriented communication style results in chatbot avatars make the
emotion-based thought processes (Zhou et al., 2022). negative relationship between
emotional expressions and
6.4. Discussion expectancy violations more
robust.
H6: The relationship type of
Study 3 also demonstrates that chatbots’ emotional expressions of assistants (vs. friends)
concern can increase customer satisfaction and decrease expectancy attenuates the negative
violation. Moreover, when the relationship type between chatbots and relationship between
emotional expressions and
customers is ‘friend’ (as opposed to ‘assistant’), the customer has higher
expectancy violations.
affective expectations of the chatbot. Interestingly, however, the rela­
tionship type of friend (vs. assistant) significantly mitigated the negative
relationship between emotion expressions and expectancy violation. 7.2. Research contribution
Test results Main findings
Supported Chatbots with emotional
concern lead to higher
individual satisfaction.
Supported Chatbots expressing emotional
concern are less likely to violate
individual expectations.
Supported The underlying mechanism by
which emotional concern
increases individual satisfaction
is expectation violation.
Supported Whether or not the chatbot
expressed emotional concern,
customers with low process
orientation perceived
expectancy violations similarly.
Supported Whether or not the chatbot
expressed emotional concern,
customers with high outcome
orientation perceived
expectancy violations similarly.
Supported The more human-likeness of
chatbot avatars makes the
negative relationship between
emotional expressions and
expectancy violations more
robust.
Not The relationship type of friends
Supported (vs. assistants) attenuates the
negative relationship between
emotional expressions and
expectancy violations.

7. General discussion
7.1. Discussion of results
From the perspective of EVT, we explored how chatbots’ emotional
expressions of concern affect customer satisfaction during service en­
counters. The experimental results of the three studies are summarized
in Table 4. The experimental results support most of our hypotheses and
provide insights into the mechanism rely upon which chatbots’
emotional expressions affect customer satisfaction. In Study 1, we
demonstrated that chatbots’ emotional expression of concern increased
customer satisfaction compared to no emotional expression and
demonstrated the mediating role of expectancy violation in the main
effect. We also found that customer characteristics (i.e., goal orienta­
tion) moderate the relationship between emotional expression and ex­
pectancy violation. Emotional expression does not significantly affect
expectancy violation when process orientation is low or outcome
orientation is high. Study 2 also demonstrated that the emotional
expression of concern increases customer satisfaction and reduces ex­
pectancy violation. Specifically, we demonstrated that the chatbot’s
avatar moderates the relationship between emotional expression and
expectancy violation. When the avatar is less human-like, emotional
expressions reduce expectancy violations less. Study 3 replicated the
relationships among emotional expressions by chatbots, expectancy
violation, and customer satisfaction. The negative relationship between
emotional expression and expectancy violation was robust when
changing the relationship type between customers and chatbots from
‘friend’ to ‘assistant’.
Our paper makes several essential theoretical contributions. First,
our paper contributes significantly to studying chatbots’ emotions in the
tourism industry by exploring the effect of emotional expressions of
concern by chatbots on customer satisfaction. Because chatbots are
revolutionizing the traditional paradigm of travel customer service
(Pillai & Sivathanu, 2020; Samala et al., 2020), it is crucial to improve
their design to enhance the customer service experience (I. Tussyadiah,
2020). Previous research in the tourism industry identified many factors
influencing customer experience with chatbots, including cuteness,
appearance, and anthropomorphism (Lv et al., 2022; Cai et al., 2022;
Liu, Yi, et al., 2022). However, the impact of their emotional expressions
on customer satisfaction remained unclear. For the first time, we
empirically tested the consequences of emotional expressions by chat­
bots in a tourism context and demonstrated that chatbots could express
concern for customers through emotions, increasing customer satisfac­
tion. This research also yields essential insights into the effectiveness of
AI in expressing emotions. Emotional AI is a promising direction for
improving customer experience (Becker et al., 2022; van Esch et al.,
2022). Nevertheless, it remains controversial whether AI can provide
emotional services (Wirtz et al., 2018). For instance, Soderlund, Oikar­
inen, and Tan (2021) and Han et al. (2022) demonstrated that AI agents
expressing positive emotions were effective and ineffective, respec­
tively, in improving customer experience. Our three experiment studies
demonstrated that chatbots could display concern through emotions,
thus improving customer satisfaction. Therefore, in addition to the
environment and the way emotions are expressed (Han et al., 2022), the
reason for the emergence of this contradictory finding is likely to be the
difference in the type of emotional expression These findings point to an
essential research direction for subsequent AI emotion research, i.e.,
scholars should pay more attention to the emotions that AI expresses.

10
J. Zhang et al.
Second, we advanced the study of boundary conditions for chatbots
in tourism by considering the moderating effects of the customer’s goal
orientation, the human-likeness of chatbot avatars, and the relationship
type between chatbots and customers. In human-chatbot interactions,
user perceptions and interaction outcomes are often influenced by the
combination of the human, the chatbot, and the context (Diederich
et al., 2022). Some chatbot studies in the tourism industry consider
human-related and context-related factors as boundary conditions
(Zhang et al., 2022; Pillai & Sivathanu, 2020; Liu, Yi, et al., 2022; L. Li,
Yin, et al., 2021; Lv et al., 2022), yet, little consideration is given to the
interaction of different design features of chatbots. A particular design
feature of chatbots often does not appear in isolation (Feine, Gnewuch,
Morana, & Maedche, 2019); therefore, the interaction between indi­
vidual design features is essential for customer impact (Diederich et al.,
2022; Go & Sundar, 2019). This study demonstrated that emotional
expressions by chatbots could reduce customer expectations. Never­
theless, we do not consider this relationship identical in all conditions.
We considered human (i.e., customer goal orientation) and two chatbot
design characteristics (i.e., human-likeness of avatar and relationship
type) as boundary conditions. For customer goal orientation, previous
research focused on scenarios where the service provider is human
(Güntürkün et al., 2020), and we examined for the first time the role of
this customer characteristic in human-chatbots interactions and
confirmed its importance in the emotional expression effect of chatbots.
Specifically, customers with a high process or low outcome orientation
prefer the emotional expression of chatbots. For avatars, previous
studies have shown an association with customers’ efficiency expecta­
tions of chatbots but lack evidence of their association with affective
expectations (Crolic et al., 2022). For the first time, we propose and
examine their relationship with customers’ affective expectations, i.e.,
the more human-like the avatar is, the higher the customer’s affective
expectations, thereby complementing the avatar literature. For rela­
tionship types, previous research has focused on its impact on customer
perceptions of social interaction (Youn & Jin, 2021), but the under­
standing of its association with expectations is very limited. We com­
plement the relationship type literature in human-chatbot interaction by
demonstrating for the first time that customers have higher affective
expectations for friend (vs. assistant) relationship types. It appears
reasonable that affective expectations would vary across boundary
conditions because many factors between communicators influence
expectations.
Third, our paper advances the study of expectations in human-
chatbot interactions by revealing the influence of emotional expres­
sions of chatbots on expectancy violations. The confirmation of expec­
tations is directly related to customer service outcomes (Oliver, 1980).
Some scholars have emphasized the important role of expectations
during communications with chatbots (Miao et al., 2022; Rapp et al.,
2021; Rheu, Shin, Peng, & Huh-Yoo, 2020). Nevertheless, very little
research attention has been paid to the classification, activation, and
formation of expectations in human-chatbot interactions. This limitation
has led to fragmented research and a lack of coherence among chatbot
studies (Rapp et al., 2021). In particular, there has been a call for more
research on the roles of the chatbots’ emotional intelligence in shaping
customer expectations (Miao et al., 2022). This research responds to the
call and provides insights into affective expectations’ activation, for­
mation, and impact. We demonstrated that customers have affective
expectations of chatbots. This expectation is a potential mechanism
mediating the emotional expressions of chatbots and customer satis­
faction. In particular, we show that such expectations are more likely to
be activated under the high human-likeness of the avatar and the rela­
tionship type of friend. The customer’s goal orientation plays an
essential role in forming affective expectations. Such affective expecta­
tions are almost non-existent for customers with high-outcome or
low-process orientations.
11
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
7.3. Contribution to practice
Our work also provides contributions to practice. First, our research
points to chatbot design directions for chatbot developers in travel
service companies. Our research shows that customer satisfaction will
increase if the chatbot expresses its concern for customers using emo­
tions. Therefore, companies should improve chatbot conversational
skills and care for customers using appropriate emotional expressions,
especially chatbots who act as travel recommenders. Chatbots acting as
virtual advisers may handle customer issues that may be relatively
professional and complex (Al-Natour, Benbasat, & Cenfetelli, 2021),
such that the customer’s demand for emotional experience may be more
robust. Regardless of the role, the agent should be sure that the emotions
expressed conform to the conventions and unwritten rules of human
dialogue to avoid causing discomfort to customers (McDuff & Czer­
winski, 2018).
Second, our research provides a guide for managers to manage
customer expectations. According to our study, expectancy violation
mediates the impact of emotional expressions on customer satisfaction.
Characteristics of chatbots and customers, and relationship type mod­
erate the relationship between emotional expressions and expectancy
violation. Therefore, if managers consider adding emotions to chatbot
design, they must carefully consider how to design avatars and con­
versation styles to manage customer expectations. First, when chatbots
are designed to act as assistants, it may be beneficial for chatbots to
express emotions. However, this seems to be at odds with the assistant
role, as assistants primarily focus on problem-solving skills rather than
emotional support. Nevertheless, we still suggest that chatbot designers
can make assistant chatbots express appropriate emotions to meet cus­
tomers’ affective expectations. While chatbots are designed to be
friends, the socially oriented interaction style makes expressing emo­
tions unnecessary, although customers still have affective expectations.
Second, when the avatar has a high degree of human-likeness, it is
strongly recommended to make chatbots provide some emotional sup­
port. Although an avatar is a simple design element, it can affect a
customer’s initial affective expectations. Finally, we suggest that man­
agers of travel companies can try to grasp the customer goal orientation.
Machine learning algorithms may be an effective way to infer customers’
personality traits. For customers with a communication history, ma­
chine learning can directly predict the customer’s goal orientation based
on previous communication history. Machine learning algorithms can
gradually infer goal orientation from previous user responses in the
current session for new customers with no communication history.
Chatbots infer customer goal orientation and adjust their emotional
expression behavior based on user responses over time. It is essential to
match the emotional expression of chatbots with other features of their
design, to manage user expectations and avoid the Uncanny Valley.
7.4. Limitations and future research
This research has several main limitations. First, we could not
determine the external validity of our findings. All three experimental
contexts were tourist attraction recommendations, and no other tourism
scenarios tested the robustness of our conclusions. Contextual and
situational factors might amplify the differences between humans and AI
and moderate the relationship between humans and AI systems (Rzepka
& Berger, 2018). Moreover, according to EVT (Burgoon, 1993),
contextual factors are inherently essential in influencing expectations:
for example, privacy or task-oriented scenarios in the tourism industry
might have different impacts on expectancy violations. Therefore, we
recommend that the interventions of our experiment be replicated in
different contexts.
Second, Due to the limitation of the definition of levels and mea­
surement for moderator variables, it is difficult to draw general con­
clusions regarding these effects. Single-item measures may impact our
findings for goal orientation (process orientation and outcome
J. Zhang et al.
orientation). We encourage the ability to validate our findings with
comprehensive scales measuring goal orientation in the future. For the
degree of avatar human-like, we chose only high and low options. We
expect that more complex and nuanced divisions of the degree of avatar
anthropomorphism (e.g., low vs. medium vs. high) can be used in future
studies to provide a deeper understanding of this variable.
Third, there is a limitation in the age of the experiment participants.
Compared with Generation Z, Generation X users have a worse attitude
toward chatbots (Maar, Besson, & Kefi, 2023). Since Generation X cus­
tomers are more exposed to chatbots and scenes of chatbots expressing
emotions often appear in science fiction movie scenes (Ghotbi & Ho,
2021), Generation X customers may have more affective expectations
for chatbots. Therefore, we encourage future expansion of the age range
to replicate the current study.
Finally, our experimental chatbot development tool used only Dia­
logflow. Although Dialogflow is a popular AI development platform
equipped with powerful natural language processing capabilities, using
the same development tool in all three study contexts may limit the
generalizability of our findings.
Credit authors statement
Junbo Zhang: Conceptualization, Data collection, Formal analysis,
Writing- original draft, Writing – review & editing. Qi Chen: Concep­
tualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jian­
dong Lu: Methodology, Data collection, Writing – original draft. Xiaolei
Wang: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Luning Liu: Concep­
tualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft. Yuqiang Feng:
Conceptualization, Supervision.
Appendix I. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104835.
Appendix A. Travel website designed for the experiment
12
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
Impact statement
Despite the rise of chatbots in the tourism industry, customers still
prefer to interact with humans. This paper provides an important guide
for tourism companies on how to deploy customer service chatbots. By
revealing the positive effects of emotional expressions, this study pro­
vides suggestions that travel companies may consider allowing chatbots
to express emotional concern to improve customer satisfaction. This
implementation is ethical because it is what customers expect. However,
these affective expectations vary with customer traits and designed
features of chatbots. Specifically, tourism companies deploy customer
service chatbots with a focus on customer goal orientation, chatbot
avatars, and conversational style to manage customer expectations. Our
findings also make an important and unique contribution to the litera­
ture on chatbots in the tourism industry by demonstrating that chatbots
can be as effective as human employees in providing emotional services
in service encounters.
Declaration of competing interest
We declare that there is no potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the grants from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (72202037, 72101045, 72034001,
71974044), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Univer­
sities in UIBE (21QN01), the Fundamental Research Funds in DUT
(DUT22RW102), Heilongjiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of
China (YQ2020G004) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities (HIT.OCEF.2022054 and HIT.HSS.DZ201905).
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

Appendix B. Demographic information of the participants

Study 1 (N = 141) Study 2 (N = 183) Study 3 (N = 185)

Gender
Male 33.3 41.0 38.9
Female 66.7 59.0 61.1
Age
18–29 76.6 72.7 77.8
30–39 23.4 27.3 22.2
Prior experience with chatbots
1 0 0.5 0
2 0.7 2.2 1.1
3 7.1 6.6 5.9
4 9.9 10.4 9.7
5 45.4 45.9 41.6
6 24.8 30.6 30.8
7 12.1 3.8 10.8
Note. For prior experience with chatbots, 1 equals never, 7 equals very often, and increases by the degree in between.

Appendix C. Scenarios used in Study 1, 2, 3

Study 1, 2

Study 3.

(a) Friend condition

13
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

(b) Assistant condition

Appendix D. The chatbot avatar used in Study 1, 2, 3

Study 1, 3.

Study 2.

14
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

(a) Low human-like avatar (b) High human-like avatar

Appendix E. Measurements used in Study 1, 2, 3

Variables Items Scales

Affective expectations (van Kleef & Côté, 2007; Wong & Law,
2002)
Customer satisfaction (Barger & Grandey, 2006)
Goal orientation (Güntürkün et al., 2020)
I expect the chatbot to be sensitive to my emotions and feelings. 1-Strongly disagree, 7-Strongly
I expect the chatbot to understand my emotions from the conversation. agree
I expect the chatbot to understand my emotional state.
I expect the chatbot to express appropriate emotions.
I expect the chatbot to show emotions that conform to the norms of
expression.
I expect the chatbot to express acceptable emotions.
I am satisfied with the customer service chatbot’s advice. 1-Strongly disagree, 7-Strongly
I am satisfied with the way the customer service chatbot treated me. agree
I am satisfied with the overall interaction with the customer service
chatbot.
It is important to me that there is a positive atmosphere. 1-Strongly disagree, 7-Strongly
It is important to me that things work out in the end agree

Appendix F. The results of pre-interaction affective expectation in Study 1, 2 and 3

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3

Mean 5.50 5.46 5.46

Standard Deviation 0.812 0.816 0.874
Minimum 2.83 1.67 2.00
Maximum 6.67 6.67 7.00
Observations 141 141 141

Appendix G. The results of the mediation and moderated mediation in study 1, 2 and 3

ndependent variable Dependent variable

Study 1 Study 2

Mediation model Moderated mediation Moderated mediation Moderated mediation Moderated mediation
model 1 model 2 model 3 model 4

Expectancy Customer Expectancy Customer Expectancy Customer Expectancy Customer Expectancy Customer
violation satisfaction violation satisfaction violation satisfaction violation satisfaction violation satisfaction

(continued on next page)

15
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

(continued )
ndependent variable Dependent variable

Study 1 Study 2

Mediation model Moderated mediation Moderated mediation Moderated mediation Moderated mediation
model 1 model 2 model 3 model 4

Expectancy Customer Expectancy Customer Expectancy Customer Expectancy Customer Expectancy Customer
violation satisfaction violation satisfaction violation satisfaction violation satisfaction violation satisfaction

Emotion − 0.306** 0.352*** − 0.320** 0.352*** − 0.339*** 0.352*** − 0.158* 0.047 − 0.533*** 0.053
(0.127) (0.141) (0.125) (0.141) (0.129) (0.141) (0.089) (0.051) (0.149) (0.087)
Process-orientation 0.205***
(0.078)
Outcome-orientation − 0.133*
(0.080)
Avatar 0.312*
anthropomorphic (0.177)
Relationship type − 0.130
(0.151)
Emotion x Process- − 0.224**
orientation (H 4 (0.107)
(a))
Emotion x Outcome- 0.193**
orientation (H 4 (0.092)
(b))
Emotion x Avatar − 0.209*
anthropomorphic (0.124)
(H 5)
Emotion x 0.419**
Relationship type (0.211)
(H 6)
Expectancy violation − 0.336*** − 0.336*** − 0.336*** − 0.255*** − 0.201***
(0.094) (0.094) (0.094) (0.058) (0.059)
Gender 0.260* 0.385** 0.219 0.385** 0.240* 0.385** − 0.049 0.059 0.166 0.011
(0.138) (0.152) (0.137) (0.152) (0.138) (0.152) (0.131) (0.101) (0.112) (0.088)
Age − 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.009 − 0.000 0.009 0.012 − 0.016* 0.016 0.006
(0.010) (0.011) (0.010) (0.011) (0.010) (0.011) (0.012) (0.009) (0.010) (0.008)
Experience 0.092 0.067 0.078 0.067 0.106* 0.067 0.083 0.127** − 0.023 0.165***
(0.062) (0.068) (0.061) (0.068) (0.062) (0.068) (0.063) (0.049) (0.053) (0.042)
Error 0.299 − 0.145 0.317* − 0.145 0.301 − 0.145 0.315* − 0.179 0.419* − 0.321
(0.184) (0.201) (0.182) (0.201) (0.185) (0.201) (0.178) (0.139) (0.216) (0.173)
Belief − 0.103** 0.151*** − 0.113** 0.151*** − 0.095* 0.151*** − 0.123*** 0.130*** − 0.083** 0.149***
(0.050) (0.055) (0.051) (0.055) (0.051) (0.055) (0.045) (0.036) (0.041) (0.032)
Observations 141 141 141 183 185
F test 2.85** 8.63*** 3.09*** 8.63*** 2.72*** 8.63*** 4.56*** 10.58*** 3.45*** 12.81***
R2 0.113** 0.312*** 0.158*** 0.312*** 0.142*** 0.312*** 0.173*** 0.298*** 0.136*** 0.336***
Note: Process orientation and Outcome-orientation were mean-centered. Standard errors are in parentheses. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Appendix H. Comparison of the results of pre-interaction affective expectation and post-interaction affective performance by groups in
Study 3

Friend (F) Assistant (A)

Control (C) Emotion (E) Control (C) Emotion (E)

Pre-interaction Mean 5.48 5.71 5.32 5.4

Std 0.96 0.68 0.77 0.93
P-value of T-test FC vs FE FC vs AC AC vs AE FE vs AE
0.16 0.38 0.62 0.07
Post-interaction Mean 5.3 5,70 4.94 5.6
Std 0.64 0.8 0.98 0.88
P-value of T-test FC vs FE FC vs AC AC vs AE FE vs AE
0.009 0.04 0.001 0.55

References Al-Natour, S., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. (2021). Designing online virtual advisors to
encourage customer self-disclosure: A theoretical model and an empirical test.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 38(3), 798–827.
Adam, M., Wessel, M., & Benlian, A. (2021). AI-based chatbots in customer service and
Ameen, N., Cheah, J. H., & Kumar, S. (2022). It’s all part of the customer journey: The
their effects on user compliance. Electronic Markets, 31(2), 427–445.
impact of augmented reality, chatbots, and social media on the body image and self-
Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation
esteem of Generation Z female consumers. Psychology and Marketing, 39(11),
violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3),
2110–2129.
365–392.
Barger, P. B., & Grandey, A. A. (2006). Service with a smile and encounter satisfaction:
Akhoondnejad, A. (2016). Tourist loyalty to a local cultural event: The case of Turkmen
Emotional contagion and appraisal mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 49
handicrafts festival. Tourism Management, 52, 468–477.
(6), 1229–1238.

16
J. Zhang et al.
Becker, M., Efendić, E., & Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2022). Emotional communication by
service robots: A research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 33(4–5), 675–687.
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48.
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Lowry, P. B., Humpherys, S. L., Moody, G. D., Gaskin, J. E.,
et al. (2016). Application of Expectancy Violations Theory to communication with
and judgments about embodied agents during a decision-making task. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 91, 24–36.
Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and
their violations. Human Communication Research, 2(2), 131–146.
Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative
consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17(2), 232–265.
Cai, D., Li, H., & Law, R. (2022). Anthropomorphism and OTA chatbot adoption: A mixed
methods study. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 39(2), 228–255.
Chin, H. J., & Yi, M. Y. (2022). Voices that care differently: Understanding the
effectiveness of a conversational agent with an alternative empathy orientation and
emotional expressivity in mitigating verbal abuse. International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, 38(12), 1–15.
Chong, T., Yu, T., Keeling, D. I., & de Ruyter, K. (2021). AI-chatbots on the services
frontline addressing the challenges and opportunities of agency. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 63, Article 102735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2021.102735
Crolic, C., Thomaz, F., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2022). Blame the bot:
Anthropomorphism and anger in customer–chatbot interactions. Journal of
Marketing, 86(1), 132–148.
Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of human-robot
interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362
(1480), 679–704.
Delcourt, C., Gremler, D. D., van Riel, A. C.r., & van Birgelen, M. (2013). Effects of
perceived employee emotional competence on customer satisfaction and loyalty: The
mediating role of rapport. Journal of Service Management, 24(1), 5–24.
Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., & Bos, A. E. R. (2008). The role of emotion in computer-
mediated communication: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 766–785.
Diederich, S., Brendel, A. B., Morana, S., & Kolbe, L. (2022). On the design of and
interaction with conversational agents: An organizing and assessing review of
human-computer interaction research. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 23(1), 96–138.
van Esch, P., Cui, Y., Gina, Das, G., Jain, S. P., & Wirtz, J. (2022). Tourists and AI: A
political ideology perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 97. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.annals.2022.103471
Esmark Jones, C. L., Hancock, T., Kazandjian, B., & Voorhees, C. M. (2022). Engaging the
Avatar: The effects of authenticity signals during chat-based service recoveries.
Journal of Business Research, 144, 703–716.
Fan, A., Lu, Z., Mao, Z., & Eddie. (2022). To talk or to touch: Unraveling consumer
responses to two types of hotel in-room technology. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 101, Article 103112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2021.103112
Feine, J., Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., & Maedche, A. (2019). A taxonomy of social cues for
conversational agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 132,
138–161.
FlowXO. (2022). Industries that are winning with chatbots. Retrieved 13 February 2023
from: https://flowxo.com/industries-that-are-winning-with-chatbots/.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological
Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66.
Fota, A., Wagner, K., Roeding, T., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2022). “Help! I have a problem”
– differences between a humanlike and robot-like chatbot avatar in complaint
management. HICSS 2022 Proceedings, 4273–4282. https://doi.org/10.24251/
hicss.2022.522
Ghotbi, N., & Ho, M. T. (2021). Moral awareness of college students regarding artificial
intelligence. Asian Bioethics Review, 13(4), 421–433.
Gorry, G. A., & Westbrook, R. A. (2011). Once more, with feeling: Empathy and
technology in customer care. Business Horizons, 54(2), 125–134.
Go, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2019). Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and
conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 97,
304–316.
Gronroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European
Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44.
Güntürkün, P., Haumann, T., & Mikolon, S. (2020). Disentangling the differential roles of
warmth and competence judgments in customer-service provider relationships.
Journal of Service Research, 23(4), 476–503.
Han, E., Yin, D., & Zhang, H. (2022). Bots with feelings: Should AI agents express positive
emotion in customer service? Information Systems Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1287/isre.2022.1179
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford publications.
Hildebrand, C., & Bergner, A. (2021). Conversational robo advisors as surrogates of trust:
Onboarding experience, firm perception, and consumer financial decision making.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 659–676.
Hoang, C., & Tran, H. A. (2022). Robot cleaners in tourism venues: The importance of
robot-environment fit on consumer evaluation of venue cleanliness. Tourism
Management, 93, Article 104611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104611
Houston, L., Grandey, A. A., & Sawyer, K. (2018). Who cares if “service with a smile” is
authentic? An expectancy-based model of customer race and differential service
reactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 85–96.
17
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
Hou, Y., Zhang, K., & Li, G. (2021). Service robots or human staff: How social crowding
shapes tourist preferences. Tourism Management, 83, Article 104242. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104242
Iacobucci, D., & Ostrom, A. (1993). Gender differences in the impact of core and
relational aspects of services on the evaluation of service encounters. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 257–286.
Jiang, C., Zhang, C., Ji, Y., Hu, Z., Zhan, Z., & Yang, G. (2022). An affective chatbot with
controlled specific emotion expression. Science China Information Sciences, 65(10),
1–18.
Jiménez-Barreto, J., Rubio, N., & Molinillo, S. (2021). “Find a flight for me, Oscar!”
Motivational customer experiences with chatbots. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(11), 3860–3882.
de Kervenoael, R., Hasan, R., Schwob, A., & Goh, E. (2020). Leveraging human-robot
interaction in hospitality services: Incorporating the role of perceived value,
empathy, and information sharing into visitors’ intentions to use social robots.
Tourism Management, 78, Article 104042.
Kim, H. J. (2008). Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: The antecedents and effects
on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 151–161.
Kim, T. W., Jiang, L., Duhachek, A., Lee, H., & Garvey, A. (2022a). Do you mind if I ask
you a personal question? How AI service agents alter consumer self-disclosure.
Journal of Service Research, 25(4), 649–666.
Kim, H., So, K. K. F., & Wirtz, J. (2022b). Service robots: Applying social exchange theory
to better understand human–robot interactions. Tourism Management, 92, Article
104537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104537
Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do materialists prefer the “brand-as-servant”? The
interactive effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and materialism on consumer
responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 284–299.
Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2004). Goal seeker and persuasion sentry: How
consumer targets respond to interpersonal marketing persuasion. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(3), 573–582.
Kozinets, R.v., & Gretzel, U. (2021). Commentary: Artificial intelligence: The marketer’s
dilemma. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 156–159.
Kull, A. J., Romero, M., & Monahan, L. (2021). How may I help you? Driving brand
engagement through the warmth of an initial chatbot message. Journal of Business
Research, 135, 840–850.
Kyung, N., & Kwon, H. E. (2022). Rationally trust, but emotionally? The roles of
cognitive and affective trust in laypeople’s acceptance of AI for preventive care
operations. Production and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/
poms.13785
Lei, S. I., Shen, H., & Ye, S. (2021). A comparison between chatbot and human service:
Customer perception and reuse intention. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 33(11), 3977–3995.
Li, L., Lee, K. Y., Emokpae, E., & Yang, S. B. (2021). What makes you continuously use
chatbot services? Evidence from Chinese online travel agencies. Electronic Markets,
31(3), 575–599.
Liu, X., Stella, Wan, L. C., Yi, X., & Shannon. (2022). Humanoid versus non-humanoid
robots: How mortality salience shapes preference for robot services under the
COVID-19 pandemic? Annals of Tourism Research, 94, Article 103383. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103383
Liu, X. (Stella), Yi, X., Shannon, & Wan, L. C. (2022). Friendly or competent? The effects
of perception of robot appearance and service context on usage intention. Annals of
Tourism Research, 92, Article 103324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2021.103324
Li, M., Yin, D., Qiu, H., & Bai, B. (2021). A systematic review of AI technology-based
service encounters: Implications for hospitality and tourism operations. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, Article 102930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2021.102930
Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial
intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650.
Lopatovska, I., & Arapakis, I. (2011). Theories, methods and current research on
emotions in library and information science, information retrieval and human-
computer interaction. Information Processing & Management, 47(4), 575–592.
Lv, X., Luo, J., Liang, Y., Liu, Y., & Li, C. (2022). Is cuteness irresistible? The impact of
cuteness on customers’ intentions to use AI applications. Tourism Management, 90,
Article 104472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104472
Maar, D., Besson, E., & Kefi, H. (2023). Fostering positive customer attitudes and usage
intentions for scheduling services via chatbots. Journal of Service Management, 34(2),
208–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-06-2021-0237
Madden, C. S., Little, E. L., & Dolich, I. J. (1979). A temporal model of consumer s/
d concepts as net expectations and performance evaluations. In New dimensions of
consumer satisfaction and complaining behavior (pp. 79–82). Indiana: School of
Business, Indiana University Bloomington.
McDuff, D., & Czerwinski, M. (2018). Designing emotionally sentient agents.
Communications of the ACM, 61(12), 74–83.
Melián-González, S., & Bulchand-Gidumal, J. (2020). Employment in tourism: The jaws
of the snake in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 80, Article 104123. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104123
Melián-González, S., Gutiérrez-Taño, D., & Bulchand-Gidumal, J. (2021). Predicting the
intentions to use chatbots for travel and tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(2),
192–210.
Miao, F., Kozlenkova, I. v, Wang, H., Xie, T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). An emerging
theory of avatar marketing. Journal of Marketing, 86(1), 67–90.
Moon, Y. (2000). Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from
consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 323–339.
J. Zhang et al.
Nass, C., & Lee, K. M. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality?
Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3), 171–181.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences
on merchant and product satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 372–383.
Orden-Mejía, M. A., & Huertas, A. (2022a). Tourist interaction and satisfaction with the
chatbot evokes pre-visit destination image formation? A case study. Anatolia, 1–15.
Orden-Mejía, M., & Huertas, A. (2022b). Analysis of the attributes of smart tourism
technologies in destination chatbots that influence tourist satisfaction. Current Issues
in Tourism, 25(17), 2854–2869.
Pillai, R., & Sivathanu, B. (2020). Adoption of AI-based chatbots for hospitality and
tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(10),
3199–3266.
Rapp, A., Curti, L., & Boldi, A. (2021). The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A
systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 151, Article 102630. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630
Rheu, M., Shin, J. Y., Peng, W., & Huh-Yoo, J. (2020). Systematic review: Trust-building
factors and implications for conversational agent design. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 37(1), 81–96.
Ruan, Y., & Mezei, J. (2022). When do AI chatbots lead to higher customer satisfaction
than human frontline employees in online shopping assistance? Considering product
attribute type. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 68, Article 103059. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103059
de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (1998). On the complex nature of patient evaluations of
general practice service. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(5), 565–590.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-
determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Rzepka, C., & Berger, B. (2018). User interaction with AI-enabled systems: A systematic
review of IS research. ICIS 2018 Proceedings, 1–17.
Samala, N., Katkam, B. S., Bellamkonda, R. S., & Rodriguez, R. V. (2020). Impact of AI
and robotics in the tourism sector: A critical insight. Journal of Tourism Futures, 8(1),
73–87.
Schuetzler, R. M., Giboney, J. S., Grimes, G. M., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2018). The
influence of conversational agent embodiment and conversational relevance on
socially desirable responding. Decision Support Systems, 114, 94–102.
Seeger, A. M., Pfeiffer, J., & Heinzl, A. (2021). Texting with humanlike conversational
agents: Designing for anthropomorphism. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 22(4), 931–967.
Shi, S., Gong, Y., & Gursoy, D. (2021). Antecedents of trust and adoption intention
toward artificially intelligent recommendation systems in travel planning: A
heuristic–systematic model. Journal of Travel Research, 60(8), 1714–1734.
Soderlund, M., Oikarinen, E. L., & Tan, T. M. (2021). The happy virtual agent and its
impact on the human customer in the service encounter. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 59, Article 102401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2020.102401
Song, S. W., & Shin, M. (2022). Uncanny Valley effects on chatbot trust, purchase
intention, and adoption intention in the context of E-commerce: The moderating role
of avatar familiarity. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2121038
Song, X., Xu, B., & Zhao, Z. (2022). Can people experience romantic love for artificial
intelligence? An empirical study of intelligent assistants. Information and
Management, 59(2), Article 103595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103595
Sundar, S. S., Jung, E. H., Waddell, T. F., & Kim, K. J. (2017). Cheery companions or
serious assistants? Role and demeanor congruity as predictors of robot attraction and
use intentions among senior citizens. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 97, 88–97.
Tung, V. W. S., & Law, R. (2017). The potential for tourism and hospitality experience
research in human-robot interactions. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 29(10), 2498–2513.
Tussyadiah, I. (2020). A review of research into automation in tourism: Launching the
annals of tourism research curated collection on artificial intelligence and robotics in
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 81, Article 102883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2020.102883
Tussyadiah, I. P., & Park, S. (2018). When guests trust hosts for their words: Host
description and trust in sharing economy. Tourism Management, 67, 261–272.
Urakami, J., Moore, B. A., Sutthithatip, S., & Park, S. (2019). Users’ perception of
empathic expressions by an advanced intelligent system. In Proceedings of the 7th
international conference on human-agent interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3349537.3351895
van Kleef, G. A., & Côté, S. (2007). Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when
it hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1557.
Van Kleef, G. A., & Côté, S. (2022). The social effects of emotions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 73, 629–658.
Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message
interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer
Review, 19(3), 324–347.
Wang, X., Jiang, M., Han, W., & Qiu, L. (2022). Do emotions sell? The impact of
emotional expressions on sales in the space-sharing economy. Production and
Operations Management, 31(1), 65–82.
Wang, Z., Singh, S. N., Jessica Li, Y., Mishra, S., Ambrose, M., & Biernat, M. (2017).
Effects of employees’ positive affective displays on customer loyalty intentions: An
18
Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835
emotions-as-social-information perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1),
109–129.
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., et al. (2018).
Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29
(5), 907–931.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(3), 97–128.
Yin, D., Bond, S. D., & Zhang, H. (2021). Anger in consumer reviews: Unhelpful but
persuasive? MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 45(3), 1059–1086.
Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V. S., Kunz, H., W, & Toporowski, W. (2021). Check-in at the
Robo-desk: Effects of automated social presence on social cognition and service
implications. Tourism Management, 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2021.104309
Yoon, J., & Yu, H. (2022). Impact of customer experience on attitude and utilization
intention of a restaurant-menu curation chatbot service. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-03-2021-0089
Youn, S., & Jin, S. V. (2021). “In A.I. we trust?” The effects of parasocial interaction and
technopian versus luddite ideological views on chatbot-based customer relationship
management in the emerging “feeling economy.”. Computers in Human Behavior, 119,
Article 106721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106721
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service:
Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. In choice reviews online. Simon
and Schuster, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.28-0390
Zhang, B., Zhu, Y., Deng, J., Zheng, W., Liu, Y., Wang, C., et al. (2022). “I Am here to
assist your tourism”: Predicting continuance intention to use AI-based chatbots for
tourism. Does gender really matter? International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 1–17.
Zhao, T., Cui, J., Hu, J., Dai, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2022). Is artificial intelligence customer
service satisfactory? Insights based on microblog data and user interviews.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(2), 110–117.
Zhou, Y., Fei, Z., He, Y., & Yang, Z. (2022). How human–chatbot interaction impairs
charitable giving: The role of moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(3),
849–865.
Junbo Zhang (zhangjunbo@hit.edu.cn) is a doctoral student in
information systems in the School of Management at the Harbin
Institute of Technology (HIT). He received his bachelor’s de­
gree from that university. He is interested in human-computer
interaction and data mining.
Qi Chen(chenqidut@dlut.edu.cn) is an assistant professor in
the Department of Management Science and Engineering in the
School of Business and Management at Dalian University of
Technology (DUT), China. She received her Ph.D., M.S. and B.S.
in Management Science and Engineering from Harbin Institute
of Technology (HIT) in China. Her research interests are in the
areas of security, privacy and trust, management information
systems, social media. She has published articles in journals and
conferences such as Internet Research, International Journal of
Information Management, Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS) and Pacific Asia Conference on Infor­
mation Systems (PACIS).
Jiandong Lu (lujiandong@hit.edu.cn) is a Ph.D. candidate in
the Department of Management Science and Engineering in the
School of Management at Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT).
His research primarily focuses on digital transformation and
servitization, organizational resilience, and consumer behavior
in tourism. His work has been published in Information &
Management, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Information Technology & People, International Journal of Infor­
mation Management, Computers & Industrial Engineering, and
others.
J. Zhang et al. Tourism Management 100 (2024) 104835

Xiaolei Wang (wangxiaolei@uibe.edu.cn) is an Assistant Pro­
fessor in the School of Information Technology & Management
at University of International Business & Economics (UIBE),
China. Her research primarily focuses on customer participa­
tion, knowledge contribution, and organizational resilience.
Her research has been published in European Journal of Infor­
mation Systems, Information & Management, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, International Journal of Information
Management and others.
Yuqiang Feng (fengyq@hit.edu.cn) is a Professor in the
Department of Management Science and Engineering in the
School of Management at Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT),
China. She holds an MS and a PhD in management science and
engineering from Harbin Institute of Technology. Her research
focuses on e-commerce, business intelligence, big data, intelli­
gent community, and industrial internet. Her research has been
published in European Journal of Information Systems, Interna­
tional Journal of Information Management, Information Systems
Frontiers, Information & Management, Computers in Human
Behavior, Scientometrics, and others.

Luning Liu (liuluning@hit.edu.cn) is a Professor and Depart­

ment Chair in the Department of Public Administration in the
School of Management at Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT),
China. He received his Ph.D. in management science and en­
gineering at that university. His research primarily focuses on
big data analytics, e-government, and e-commerce. His work
has been published in European Journal of Information Systems,
Government Information Quarterly, International Journal of In­
formation Management, Information Systems Frontiers, Computers
in Human Behavior, Information Technology for Development, In­
dustrial Management & Data Systems, Telecommunications Policy,
and others.

19