Cited by 133Speech and dialogue systemsAI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Can machines talk? Comparison of Eliza with modern dialogue systems

Open access
Shah, Huma, Warwick, Kevin, Vallverdú, Jordi, Wu, Defeng·2016·Computers in Human Behavior

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.004

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The anthropomorphic design of chatbots and virtual companions encourages users to attribute human-like intentionality and empathy to algorithms.

    “the anthropomorphic design of chatbots and virtual companions encourages users to attribute human-like intentionality and empathy to algorithms, a dynamic reminiscent of the “ELIZA effect” described in early human-computer interaction literature [20,21].”

    From Delusional Experiences Emerging From AI Chatbot Interactions or “AI Psychosis” (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

    Section 3, “Eliza,” reports that users confided in Eliza and sought its empathy. The “Additional information” section also records a judge perceiving a modern chatbot as angry or happy. These passages support the empathy aspect, but the paper does not establish that anthropomorphic design causes users to attribute intentionality to chatbots and virtual companions generally; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bade, D. (2012). Sign unsigned and meanings not meant: linguistic theory and hypothetical, simulated, imitation and meaningless language. Language Sciences, Vol. 34, pp. 361-375
  2. Epstein, G. Roberts & G. Beber, Parsing the Turing : Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer', p. 359-376. Springer. Crime Stoppers (2013). Identity Theft and Financial Fraud. Retrieved from: http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/fraud/types-of-fraud/online-fraud/identity-theft-and-fraud?gclid=CLfo_b2o77UCFUbMtAodUnIAYg 9.3.13; 22:11
  3. Demchenko, E. & Veselov, V. (2008). Who Fools Whom? The Great Mystification, or Methodological Issues in Making Fools of Human Beings. In (Eds) R. Epstein, G. Roberts & G. Beber, Parsing the Turing : Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer, p447-459. Springer Elbot (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.elbot.com/chatterbot-elbot/ 8.3.13 Pre-publication version. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.004
  4. Link, D. (2013). There Must be an Angel: on the beginnings of the Arithmetic of Rays. The Rutherford Journal, Volume 5 (forthcoming). http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/ Loebner Prize (2014). Home of the Loebner Prize for Artificial Intelligence.
  5. S.B. Cooper & J. van Leeuwen, Alan Turing: His Work and Impact, Part III Building a brain: intelligent machines, practice and theory, pp. 614-620. Elsevier: Oxford.
  6. Shah, H. and Pavlika, V. (2005). Text-based Dialogical Q-Query Systems: Gimmick or Convenience. Proceedings of the 10 th International Conference on Speech and Computers (SPECOM), Patras, Greece, October 17-19, ISBN: 5-7452-0110-X, Vol. II pp 425-428,
  7. Shah, H., Warwick, K., Bland, I.M., Chapman, C.D., and Allen, M. (2012). Turing's Imitation Game: Role of Error-making in Intelligent Thought. Turing in Context II, Brussels 10-12 October, available here: https://www.academia.edu/1916866/Turing_s_Imitation_Game_Role_of_Error- making_in_Intelligent_Thought
  8. Shah, H., and Warwick, K. (2007). Constraining Random Dialogue in Modern Eliza, in (Schmidt C.T.A., 2007). Computers and Philosophy, an International Conference, Proceedings, 3-5 May 2006
  9. Laval France, EOARD/LIUM/AAAI/IEEE/UNESCO, London: EOARD, pp. 247-265.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shah, H., Warwick, K., Vallverdú, J., & Wu, D.
Affiliations
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Jimei University (CN)
Corresponding author
Shah, Huma
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
58
Pages
278-295
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2275716005
Cited by
133
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Coventry University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
Eliza, natural language understanding, chatbots, virtual assistants, e-commerce, chatbot evaluation

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