In recent years, it could be observed that the anthropomorphism of products and brands offered a unique transformative opportunity for marketing managers. Researchers found that when products or brands were anthropomorphized (i.e., when human-like features were given to non-human entities), they acquired a positive consumer attitude, which ultimately increased purchase intentions. As a result, the available literature on brand anthropomorphism matured over the period. This study tried to map the research done in brand anthropomorphism across the globe from 2000 to 2021 in various Scopus-indexed journals, using tools such as Advanced Excel, VOS Viewer, and Biblioshiny—a bibliometric analysis tool. The results suggested that The Computers in Human Behaviour was the leading journal that published the most articles related to brand anthropomorphism. Also, the study indicated that the authors and journals from the United States contributed the most in this area. The study was relevant from the managerial perspective as many companies were anthropomorphizing their products and brands, thus strengthening the consumer-brand relationship. In conclusion, this study intended to provide valuable insights to scholars and marketing managers about the present and future scope of research in this area.

1. Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/518544
2. Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1086/662614
3. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
4. Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M., & Allspach, L. (2000). Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(6), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00029-7
5. Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.008
6. Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400108
7. Delgado-Ballester, E., Palazón, M., & Peláez, J. (2020). Anthropomorphized vs objectified brands: Which brand version is more loved? European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 29(2), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-04-2019-0063
8. Ennaceur, A., Michalikova, S., & Chazot, P. L. (2006). Models of anxiety: Responses of rats to novelty in an open space and an enclosed space. Behavioural Brain Research, 171(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2006.03.016
9. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
10. Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143
11. Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19(2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x
12. Farzanfar, R. (2006). When computers should remain computers: A qualitative look at the humanization of health care technology. Health Informatics Journal, 12(3), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458206066663
13. Fox, R. (2006). Animal behaviours, post-human lives: Everyday negotiations of the animal-human divide in pet-keeping. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(4), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360600825679
14. Golossenko, A., Pillai, K. G., & Aroean, L. (2020). Seeing brands as humans: Development and validation of a brand anthropomorphism scale. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(4), 737–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.02.007
15. Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2015). Brand anthropomorphism: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on brand personality and loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 22, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.40
16. Gupta, R., & Jain, K. (2019). The impact of anthropomorphism on purchase intention of smartphones: A study of young Indian consumers. Indian Journal of Marketing, 49(5), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2019/v49/i5/144021
17. Hart, P. M., Jones, S. R., & Royne, M. B. (2013). The human lens: How anthropomorphic reasoning varies by product complexity and enhances personal value. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1–2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.759993
18. Hsieh, M.-H., Li, X. B., Jain, S. P., & Swaminathan, V. (2021). Self-construal drives preference for partner and servant brands. Journal of Business Research, 129, 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.054
19. Huang, R., Zhou, X., Ye, W., & Guo, S. (2020). Think versus feel: Two dimensions of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(7), 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2018-2125
20. Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M. S., & Madden, T. J. (2016). The influence of social media interactions on consumer-brand relationships: A three-country study of brand perceptions and marketing behaviors. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.06.004
21. Hur, J. D., Koo, M., & Hofmann, W. (2015). When temptations come alive: How anthropomorphism undermines self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv017
22. Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1086/658148
23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv015
24. Kim, H.-Y., & McGill, A. L. (2018). Minions for the rich? Financial status changes how consumers see products with anthropomorphic features. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(2), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy006
25. Laksmidewi, D., Susianto, H., & Afiff, A. Z. (2017). The effect of hero archetype in advertising on perceived product efficacy. Indian Journal of Marketing, 47(5), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2017/v47/i5/114234
26. Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It's got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.3.132
27. Letheren, K., Jetten, J., Roberts, J., & Donovan, J. (2021). Robots should be seen and not heard…sometimes: Anthropomorphism and AI service robot interactions. Psychology & Marketing, 38(12), 2393–2406. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21575
28. MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C.-C., & Koch, C. T. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.026
29. MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003
30. Mahadevan, K., & Joshi, S. (2021). Trends in electronic word of mouth research: A bibliometric review and analysis. Indian Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2021/v51/i4/158468
31. Mahajan, Y., & Gadekar, A. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of buzz marketing: Research areas, concerns, and suggestions for advancement. Indian Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2021/v51/i2/157550
32. Mithen, S., & Boyer, P. (1996). Anthropomorphism and the evolution of cognition. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2(4), 717–721. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034305
33. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
34. Ning, Z., Chunqun, L., Zelin, T., Nan, Z., & Yiting, H. (2020). The impact of incomplete faces of spokes-characters in mobile application icon designs on brand evaluations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1495. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01495
35. Pelau, C., Dabija, D.-C., & Ene, I. (2021). What makes an AI device human-like? The role of interaction quality, empathy and perceived psychological anthropomorphic characteristics in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the service industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, Article 106855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106855
36. Pilkington, A., & Meredith, J. (2009). The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management—1980–2006: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 27(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.08.001
37. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2010.39103
38. Puntoni, S., Reczek, R. W., Giesler, M., & Botti, S. (2021). Consumers and artificial intelligence: An experiential perspective. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920953847
39. Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2009). Pushing the envelope of brand and personality: Antecedents and moderators of anthropomorphized brands. In, A. L. McGill & S. Shavitt (eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 36, pp. 413 – 420). Association for Consumer Research.
40. Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0510
41. Roy, R., & Naidoo, V. (2021). Enhancing chatbot effectiveness: The role of anthropomorphic conversational styles and time orientation. Journal of Business Research, 126, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.051
42. Singh, S., Olson, E. D., & Tsai, C.-H. K. (2021). Use of service robots in an event setting: Understanding the role of social presence, eeriness, and identity threat. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.10.014
43. Tam, K.-P. (2015). Are anthropomorphic persuasive appeals effective? The role of the recipient's motivations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12076
44. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
45. Tsai, W.-H. S., Liu, Y., & Chuan, C.-H. (2021). How chatbots' social presence communication enhances consumer engagement: The mediating role of parasocial interaction and dialogue. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 460–482. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2019-0200
46. Van Esch, P., Arli, D., Gheshlaghi, M. H., Andonopoulos, V., Von der Heidt, T., & Northey, G. (2019). Anthropomorphism and augmented reality in the retail environment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.002
47. Vernuccio, M., Patrizi, M., & Pastore, A. (2021). Delving into brand anthropomorphisation strategies in the experiential context of name-brand voice assistants. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1984
48. Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
49. Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005