IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/119275.html

Humanization of Virtual Assistants and Delegation Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Nanyin
  • Palma, Marco
  • Drichoutis, Andreas C.

Abstract

Virtual assistants powered by artificial intelligence are present in virtually every aspect of daily life. Although they are computer algorithms, most are represented with humanized personal characteristics. We study whether assigning them a gender affects the propensity to delegate a search in two online experiments and compare it to human counterparts of identical characteristics. Virtual assistants generally receive higher delegation than humans. Gender has differential effects in delegation rates impacting the user's welfare. The results are entirely driven by female subjects. We find mild spillover effects, primarily decreasing selection of male humans after interacting with low-quality male virtual assistants.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Nanyin & Palma, Marco & Drichoutis, Andreas C., 2023. "Humanization of Virtual Assistants and Delegation Choices," MPRA Paper 119275, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:119275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/119275/1/MPRA_paper_119275.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Bauer, Kevin & von Zahn, Moritz & Hinz, Oliver, 2023. "Please take over: XAI, delegation of authority, and domain knowledge," SAFE Working Paper Series 394, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    3. Raphael Koster & Jan Balaguer & Andrea Tacchetti & Ari Weinstein & Tina Zhu & Oliver Hauser & Duncan Williams & Lucy Campbell-Gillingham & Phoebe Thacker & Matthew Botvinick & Christopher Summerfield, 2022. "Human-centred mechanism design with Democratic AI," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1398-1407, October.
      • Raphael Koster & Jan Balaguer & Andrea Tacchetti & Ari Weinstein & Tina Zhu & Oliver Hauser & Duncan Williams & Lucy Campbell-Gillingham & Phoebe Thacker & Matthew Botvinick & Christopher Summerfield, 2022. "Human-centered mechanism design with Democratic AI," Papers 2201.11441, arXiv.org.
    4. Sylvie Borau & Tobias Otterbring & Sandra Laporte & Samuel Fosso Wamba, 2021. "The most human bot: Female gendering increases humanness perceptions of bots and acceptance of AI," Post-Print hal-03648092, HAL.
    5. Nikhil Agarwal & Alex Moehring & Pranav Rajpurkar & Tobias Salz, 2023. "Combining Human Expertise with Artificial Intelligence: Experimental Evidence from Radiology," NBER Working Papers 31422, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    7. Ernst Fehr & Holger Herz & Tom Wilkening, 2013. "The Lure of Authority: Motivation and Incentive Effects of Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1325-1359, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Freyer, Timo & Radbruch, Jonas & Schaube, Sebastian & Strang, Louis, 2025. "The effect of task (mis)matching and self-selection on intrinsic motivation and performance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    2. Greiner, Ben, 2023. "Strategic uncertainty aversion in bargaining — Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Jiang, Xu & Wang, Xianghong, 2024. "Gender difference in leaders framed with responsibility or authority: An experimental study," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. François Desmoulins-Lebeault & Jean-François Gajewski & Luc Meunier, 2018. "Personality and Risk Aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 472-489.
    5. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    6. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    7. Jason Aimone & Sheryl Ball & Brooks King-Casas, 2015. "The Betrayal Aversion Elicitation Task: An Individual Level Betrayal Aversion Measure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    8. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    9. David Danz & Dorothea Kübler & Lydia Mechtenberg & Julia Schmid, 2015. "On the Failure of Hindsight-Biased Principals to Delegate Optimally," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1938-1958, August.
    10. M. Bigoni & D. Dragone, 2011. "An experiment on experimental instructions," Working Papers wp794, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Oswald, Yvonne & Backes-Gellner, Uschi, 2014. "Learning for a bonus: How financial incentives interact with preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 52-61.
    12. Freundt, Jana & Lange, Andreas, 2021. "On the voluntary provision of public goods under risk," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    13. Celse, Jeremy & Karakostas, Alexandros & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2023. "Relative risk taking and social curiosity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 243-264.
    14. Jiabin Wu, 2018. "Indirect higher order beliefs and cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 858-876, December.
    15. Riccardo Zanardelli, 2025. "Navigating the safe harbor paradox in human-machine systems," Papers 2509.14057, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2026.
    16. Alserda, Gosse A.G. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Swinkels, Laurens & van der Lecq, Fieke S.G., 2019. "Individual pension risk preference elicitation and collective asset allocation with heterogeneity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 206-225.
    17. Andrej Woerner & Giorgia Romagnoli & Birgit M. Probst & Nina Bartmann & Jonathan N. Cloughesy & Jan Willem Lindemans, 2025. "Should Individuals Choose Their Own Incentives? Evidence from a Mindfulness Meditation Intervention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(8), pages 7056-7070, August.
    18. Lucas C. Coffman & Alexander Gotthard-Real, 2019. "Moral Perceptions of Advised Actions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3904-3927, August.
    19. Ernst Fehr & Michael Powell & Tom Wilkening, 2014. "Handing Out Guns at a Knife Fight: Behavioral Limitations of Subgame-Perfect Implementation," CESifo Working Paper Series 4948, CESifo.
    20. Jana Freundt & Holger Herz, 2025. "A Cross-Country Study of Preferences for Choice Autonomy," CESifo Working Paper Series 12238, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:119275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.