CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How loneliness leads to the conversational AI usage intention: the roles of anthropomorphic interface, para-social interaction

Peng, Chen, Zhang, Shengyu, Wen, Fang, Liu, Kun·2025·Current Psychology
DOI 10.1007/s12144-024-06809-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12144-024-06809-5

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N. V., & Brock, C. (2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y · DOI · Paper page
  2. Chattaraman, V., Kwon, W. S., Gilbert, E., J., & Li, Y. (2014). Virtual shopping agents: Persona effects for older users. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8(2), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-08-2013-0054 · DOI
  3. Chaturvedi, R., Verma, S., Das, R., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Social companionship with artificial intelligence: Recent trends and future avenues. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 193, 122634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122634 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Christoforakos, L., & Diefenbach, S. (2023). Technology as a social companion? An exploration of individual and product-related factors of anthropomorphism. Social Science Computer Review, 41(3), 1039–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211065867 · DOI
  5. Dang, J., & Liu, L. (2023). Do lonely people seek robot companionship? A comparative examination of the loneliness–Robot anthropomorphism link in the United States and China. Computers in Human Behavior, 141, 107637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107637 · DOI
  6. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.
  8. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New challenges to international marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014 · DOI
  10. Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry,19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103754 · DOI
  11. Huang, D. H., & Chueh, H. E. (2022). Usage intention model of mobile apps in membership application. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1255–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.062 · DOI
  12. Huang, H. L., Cheng, L. K., Sun, P. C., & Chou, S. J. (2021). The effects of perceived identity threat and realistic threat on the negative attitudes and usage intentions toward hotel service robots: The moderating effect of the robot’s anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 1599–1611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00752-2 · DOI
  13. Jarzyna, C. L. (2021). Parasocial interaction, the COVID-19 quarantine, and digital age media. Human Arenas, 4(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-020-00156-0 · DOI
  14. Jeste, D. V., Lee, E. E., & Cacioppo, S. (2020). Battling the modern behavioral epidemic of loneliness: Suggestions for research and interventions. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(6), 553–554. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0027 · DOI
  15. Jin, S. A. A. (2010). Parasocial interaction with an avatar in second life: A typology of the self and an empirical test of the mediating role of social presence. Presence, 19(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00001 · DOI
  16. Jones, V. K., Hanus, M., Yan, C., Shade, M. Y., Boron, B., J., & Bicudo, M., R (2021). Reducing loneliness among aging adults: The roles of personal voice assistants and anthropomorphic interactions. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 750736. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.750736 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Kim, H., Ko, E., & Kim, J. (2015). SNS users’ para-social relationships with celebrities: Social media effects on purchase intentions. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 25(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2015.1043690 · DOI
  18. Lee, M., & Park, J. S. (2022). Do parasocial relationships and the quality of communication with AI shopping chatbots determine middle-aged women consumers’ continuance usage intentions? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(4), 842–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2043 · DOI
  19. Loveys, K., Hiko, C., Sagar, M., Zhang, X., & Broadbent, E. (2022). I felt her company: A qualitative study on factors affecting closeness and emotional support seeking with an embodied conversational agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 160, 102771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102771 · DOI
  20. McTear, M. (2023). Conversational ai: Dialogue systems, conversational agents, and chatbots. Computational Linguistics, 49(1), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_r_00470 · DOI
  21. Njeguš, A. (2021). Conversational survey chatbot: user experience and perception. Sinteza 2021-International Scientific Conference on Information Technology and Data Related Research, Belgrade.
  22. Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. Wiley.
  23. Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x · DOI
  24. Smith, D., Leonis, T., & Anandavalli, S. (2021). Belonging and loneliness in cyberspace: Impacts of social media on adolescents’ well-being. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1898914 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Sokolova, K., & Perez, C. (2021). You follow fitness influencers on YouTube. But do you actually exercise? How parasocial relationships, and watching fitness influencers, relate to intentions to exercise. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102276 · DOI
  26. Stein, J. P., Liebers, N., & Faiss, M. (2022). Feeling Better… but also less lonely? An experimental comparison of how parasocial and social relationships affect people’s well-being. Mass Communication and Society, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2127369 · DOI
  27. Stephens, D. L., Hill, R. P., & Bergman, K. (1996). Enhancing the consumer-product relationship: Lessons from the QVC home shopping channel. Journal of Business Research, 37(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00069-0 · DOI
  28. Tan, M., Shallis, A., & Barkus, E. (2020). Social Anhedonia and social functioning: Loneliness as a mediator. PsyCh Journal, 9(2), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.344 · DOI
  29. Thomas, L., Orme, E., & Kerrigan, F. (2020). Student loneliness: The role of social media through life transitions. Computers & Education, 146, 103754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103754 · DOI
  30. Tschopp, M., Gieselmann, M., & Sassenberg, K. (2023). Servant by default? How humans perceive their relationship with conversational AI. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2023-3-9 · DOI
  31. Turkle, S. (2011). Life on the screen. Simon and Schuster.
  32. Wutz, M., Hermes, M., Winter, V., & Köberlein-Neu, J. (2023). Factors influencing the acceptability, acceptance, and adoption of conversational agents in health care: Integrative review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e46548. https://doi.org/10.2196/46548 · DOI
  33. Xie, Y., Zhu, K., Zhou, P., & Liang, C. (2023). How does anthropomorphism improve human-AI interaction satisfaction: A dual-path model. Computers in Human Behavior, 148, 107878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107878 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Ye, S., Ho, K. K., & Zerbe, A. (2021). The effects of social media usage on loneliness and well-being: Analysing friendship connections of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Information Discovery and Delivery, 49(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-08-2020-0091 · DOI
  35. Yuksel, M., & Labrecque, L. I. (2016). Digital buddies: Parasocial interactions in social media. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 10(4), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-03-2016-0023 · DOI
  36. Zhai, C., & Wibowo, S. (2022). A systematic review on cross-culture, humor and empathy dimensions in conversational chatbots: The case of second language acquisition. Heliyon, 8(12), e12056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12056 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 42

Metadata

Authors
Peng, C., Zhang, S., Wen, F., & Liu, K.
Venue
Current Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-10-25
Volume
44
Issue
9
Pages
8177-8189
ISSN
  • 1046-1310
  • 1936-4733
DOI
10.1007/s12144-024-06809-5
Cited by
42
References
10
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Humanities and Social Sciences Research Program of the Ministry of Education of China (Project No. 23YJC760072)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review