Article published In: The Pragmatics of Trusting (Artificial) Others
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Bracha Nir
[Pragmatics and Society 17:5] 2026
► pp. 576–598

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Optimizing trust beliefs through interactional framing

Effects of organizational reciprocity and visual embodiment on online self-disclosure

 | Eindhoven University of Technology
ORCiD logo with link | Eindhoven University of Technology
 | Eindhoven University of Technology
 | Philips ResearchEindhoven
Published online: 6 October 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.26015.kor
Abstract
Digital platforms frequently request personal information, yet privacy concerns and perceived information sensitivity often constrain users’ willingness to disclose such information. This study examines how interface features shape responses within a simulated, fixed-sequence institutional exchange. Specifically, we investigate whether visual embodiment (a human-like facial representation) and sequential reciprocity (standardized organizational information preceding personal questions) influence trust beliefs and self-disclosure. A 2 × 2 between-subjects online experiment (N = 200) manipulated visual embodiment and informational sequencing within a structured e-commerce survey. Factorial ANOVA results showed that pre-question organizational information significantly increased trust beliefs toward the provider. However, self-disclosure increased only when visual embodiment and structural reciprocity co-occurred. This pattern is consistent with the possibility that participants interpreted the interaction as a more socially meaningful exchange when both features were jointly present. Across all conditions, perceived information sensitivity remained a strong constraint on disclosure. These findings indicate that while structured informational sequencing can enhance trust evaluations, changes in disclosure behavior depend on a coherent interactional framing of the exchange rather than on isolated interface features.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review and hypotheses formulation
    • 2.1Self-disclosure as a communicative action
    • 2.2Trust in digital interactions
    • 2.3Artificial agency, social presence, and visual embodiment
    • 2.4Reciprocity as a sequential structure
    • 2.5Interactional framing through multiple interface features
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Procedure
    • 3.3Materials
    • 3.4Measurement instruments
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Preliminary analysis
    • 4.2Hypotheses testing
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Limitations and directions for future research
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Conflict of interest
  • References
References (28)
References
Archer, Richard L., and John A. Burleson. 1980. “The Effects of Timing of Self-Disclosure on Attraction and Reciprocity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (1): 120–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ashuri, Tamar, and Ran Halperin. 2025. “Online Self-Disclosure: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review of 10 Years of Research.” New Media & Society 27 (10): 5886–5912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culnan, Mary J., and Pamela K. Armstrong. 1999. “Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation.” Organization Science 10 (1): 104–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degutis, Mindaugas, Sigitas Urbonavičius, Linda D. Hollebeek, and Jonas Anselmsson. 2023. “Consumers’ Willingness to Disclose Their Personal Data in E-Commerce: A Reciprocity-Based Social Exchange Perspective.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 74: 103385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fakhimi, Azam, Tony Garry, and Sussie Biggemann. 2023. “The Effects of Anthropomorphised Virtual Conversational Assistants on Consumer Engagement and Trust During Service Encounters.” Australasian Marketing Journal 31 (4): 314–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, and Peter Glick. 2007. “Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 77–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hassanein, Khaled, and Milena Head. 2007. “Manipulating Perceived Social Presence Through the Web Interface and Its Impact on Attitude Towards Online Shopping.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65 (8): 689–708. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joinson, Adam N. 2001. “Self-Disclosure in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Self-Awareness and Visual Anonymity.” European Journal of Social Psychology 31 (2): 177–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreijns, Karel, Kai Xu, and Jeroen Weidlich. 2021. “Social Presence: Conceptualization and Measurement.” Educational Psychology Review 34 (1): 139–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lawson-Guidigbe, Chloe, Kenza Amokrane-Ferka, Nicolas Louveton, Benjamin Leblanc, Valérie Rousseaux, and Jean-Marie André. 2023. “Anthropomorphic Design and Self-Reported Behavioral Trust: The Case of a Virtual Assistant in a Highly Automated Car.” Machines 11 (12): 1087. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, Per, Johan Hofvendahl, and Camilla Lindholm. 2003. “Multi-Unit Questions in Institutional Interactions: Sequential Organizations and Communicative Functions.” Text 23 (4): 539–571. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, Benba, Wen Fan, and Mi Zhou. 2016. “Social Presence, Trust, and Social Commerce Purchase Intention: An Empirical Research.” Computers in Human Behavior 56: 225–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.” Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKnight, D. Harrison, and Norman Chervany. 2000. “What Is Trust? A Conceptual Analysis and an Interdisciplinary Model.” In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2000), 382–390.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKnight, D. Harrison, Vivekananda Choudhury, and Charles Kacmar. 2002. “Developing and Validating Trust Measures for E-Commerce: An Integrative Typology.” Information Systems Research 13 (3): 334–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meier, Yanyan, and Nicole C. Krämer. 2024. “The Privacy Calculus Revisited: An Empirical Investigation of Online Privacy Decisions on Between- and Within-Person Levels.” Communication Research 51 (2): 178–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Miriam J. 2004. “Privacy, Trust, and Disclosure: Exploring Barriers to Electronic Commerce.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9 (4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, Miriam J., Andrew J. Flanagin, and Ryan B. Medders. 2010. “Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online.” Journal of Communication 60 (3): 413–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moon, Youngme. 2000. “Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Research 26 (4): 323–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nass, Clifford, and Youngme Moon. 2000. “Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (1): 81–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pizzi, Gabriele, Veronica Vannucci, Virginia Mazzoli, and Raffaele Donvito. 2023. “I, Chatbot! The Impact of Anthropomorphism and Gaze Direction on Willingness to Disclose Personal Information and Behavioral Intentions.” Psychology & Marketing 40 (7): 1372–1387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Premathilake, Gayan W., Hongxiu Li, Chuan Li, Yong Liu, and Shaojing Han. 2025. “Understanding the Effect of Anthropomorphic Features of Humanoid Social Robots on User Satisfaction: A Stimulus-Organism-Response Approach.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 125 (2): 768–796. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharma, Kavita, and Tejinder Singh. 2025. “Influence of Website Social Presence and Trusting Beliefs on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions: A PLS-SEM Study.” IUP Journal of Marketing Management 24 (1): 90–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, H. Jeff, Sandra J. Milberg, and Sandra J. Burke. 1996. “Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’ Concerns About Organizational Practices.” MIS Quarterly 20 (2): 167–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Todorov, Alexander, Dong Won Oh, Stefan Uddenberg, and Daniel N. Albohn. 2025. “Face Evaluation: Findings, Methods, and Challenges.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1545 (1): 28–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, Tingting, and Elizabeth Broadbent. 2025. “Effects of a Computer’s Human Likeness on Disclosure in Psychosocial Assessments: A Randomised Trial.” Computers in Human Behavior 169: 108683. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue