Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cybersex with human- and machine-cued partners: Gratifications, shortcomings, and tensions.

Banks, Jaime, Van Ouytsel, Joris·2020·Technology, Mind, and Behavior
DOI 10.1037/tmb0000008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

From social-network spambots and forensic chatbots to dating simulation games, sexual communication with machines is not uncommon in contemporary culture—however, it remains effectively a black-box phenomenon. There is little empirical research examining how sexual human–machine communication (HMC-S) is experienced, whether it is impactful, or whether it may be similar or different to human–human sexual communication. Advancing our understanding of those questions is vital in understanding the potential for machine partners to foster the health and welfare benefits, as well as the potential to have negative impacts. This study takes a first step in considering experiential parity or divergence by experimentally investigating 271 people’s cybersex experience with a chat partner that was visually and textually cued as a human or a machine. Multimethod analysis suggests there may be no difference in gratifications from sex chat with ostensible machine versus human partners; however, participants seem to experience tensions between the gratifications and shortcomings of cybersex with machine-cued partners.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/tmb0000008

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Show all 67 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Banks, J., & Van Ouytsel, J.
ORCID
Venue
Technology, Mind, and Behavior
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
63-75
ISSN
2689-0208
DOI
10.1037/tmb0000008
Cited by
14
References
67
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/%20https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor, 2182 d)
Funders
Research Foundation--Flanders (12J8719N)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.