CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Influencing human–AI interaction by priming beliefs about AI can increase perceived trustworthiness, empathy and effectiveness

Pataranutaporn, Pat, Liu, Ruby, Finn, Ed, Maes, Pattie·2023·Nature Machine Intelligence
DOI 10.1038/s42256-023-00720-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s42256-023-00720-7

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Most data sources for research on AI companion relationships are based on capturing users' responses to researcher-constructed prompts via surveys, interviews, and experimental manipulations.

    “However, most of the data sources for these efforts are based on capturing users' responses to researcher-constructed prompts via surveys (Zhang et al., 2025), interviews (Liu et al., 2026), and experimental manipulations (Pataranutaporn et al., 2023).”

    From Me and My Bot: What Users Talk About in AI Companion Communities on Reddit (2026) · cites this paper as Pataranutaporn et al., 2023

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. Kenton, J. D. M.-W. C. & Toutanova, L. K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proc. naacL-HLT, vol. 1, 2 (2019).
  2. Thoppilan, R. et al. Lamda: language models for dialog applications. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.08239 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Vaswani, A. et al. Attention is all you need. In 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, 2017).
  4. OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Touvron, H. et al. Llama 2: open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.09288 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Kim, H., Koh, D. Y., Lee, G., Park, J.-M. & Lim, Y.-k. Designing personalities of conversational agents. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–6 (ACM, 2019). · DOI
  7. Pataranutaporn, P. et al. Ai-generated characters for supporting personalized learning and well-being. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 1013–1022 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Adamopoulou, E. & Moussiades, L. Chatbots: history, technology, and applications. Mach. Learn. Appl. 2, 100006 (2020).
  9. Hoy, M. B. Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 37, 81–88 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bavaresco, R. et al. Conversational agents in business: a systematic literature review and future research directions. Comput. Sci. Rev. 36, 100239 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Xu, A., Liu, Z., Guo, Y., Sinha, V. & Akkiraju, R. A new chatbot for customer service on social media. In Proc. 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 3506–3510 (ACM, 2017). · DOI
  12. Winkler, R., Hobert, S., Salovaara, A., Söllner, M. & Leimeister, J. M. Sara, the lecturer: Improving learning in online education with a scaffolding-based conversational agent. In Proc. 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–14 (ACM, 2020). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Jeong, S. et al. Deploying a robotic positive psychology coach to improve college students’ psychological well-being. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 33, 571–615 (2022). · DOI
  14. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People Vol. 10, 236605 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
  15. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Skjuve, M. & Følstad, A. My AI friend: How users of a social chatbot understand their human–AI friendship. Hum. Commun. Res. 48, 404–429 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  16. Breazeal, C.Designing Sociable Robots (MIT Press, 2004). · DOI
  17. Knijnenburg, B. P. & Willemsen, M. C. Inferring capabilities of intelligent agents from their external traits. In ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems Vol. 6, 1–25 (ACM, 2016). · DOI
  18. Feine, J., Gnewuch, U., Morana, S. & Maedche, A. A taxonomy of social cues for conversational agents. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Studies 132, 138–161 (2019). · DOI
  19. Złotowski, J. et al. Appearance of a robot affects the impact of its behaviour on perceived trustworthiness and empathy. Paladyn 7, 55–66 (2016).
  20. Li, D., Rau, P.-L. & Li, Y. A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2, 175–186 (2010). · DOI
  21. Komatsu, T. & Yamada, S. Effect of agent appearance on people’s interpretation of agent’s attitude. In CHI’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2919–2924 (ACM, 2008). · DOI
  22. Pi, Z. et al. The influences of a virtual instructor’s voice and appearance on learning from video lectures. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 38, 1703–1713 (2022). · DOI
  23. Paetzel, M. The influence of appearance and interaction strategy of a social robot on the feeling of uncanniness in humans. In Proc.18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction 522–526 (2016). · DOI
  24. Koda, T. & Maes, P. Agents with faces: the effect of personification. In Proc. 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication 189–194 (IEEE, 1996).
  25. Seaborn, K., Miyake, N. P., Pennefather, P. & Otake-Matsuura, M. Voice in human–agent interaction: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 1–43 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Seaborn, K. & Urakami, J. Measuring voice UX quantitatively: a rapid review. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–8 (ACM, 2021). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Ehret, J. et al. Do prosody and embodiment influence the perceived naturalness of conversational agents’ speech? In ACM Transactions on Applied Perception Vol. 18, 1–15 (ACM, 2021). · DOI
  28. Kim, Y., Reza, M., McGrenere, J. & Yoon, D. Designers characterize naturalness in voice user interfaces: their goals, practices, and challenges. In Proc. 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–13 (ACM, 2021). · DOI
  29. Aylett, M. P., Cowan, B. R. & Clark, L. Siri, Echo and performance: you have to suffer darling. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–10 (ACM, 2019). · DOI
  30. Lewis, J. R. & Hardzinski, M. L. Investigating the psychometric properties of the speech user interface service quality questionnaire. Int. J. Speech Technol. 18, 479–487 (2015). · DOI
  31. Hwang, A. H.-C. & Won, A. S. AI in your mind: counterbalancing perceived agency and experience in human–AI interaction. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts 1–10 (ACM, 2022). · DOI
  32. Völkel, S. T., Buschek, D., Eiband, M., Cowan, B. R. & Hussmann, H. Eliciting and analysing users’ envisioned dialogues with perfect voice assistants. In Proc. 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–15 (ACM, 2021). · DOI
  33. Kraus, M., Wagner, N. & Minker, W. Effects of proactive dialogue strategies on human-computer trust. In Proc. 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization 107–116 (ACM, 2020). · DOI
  34. Castro-González, Á., Admoni, H. & Scassellati, B. Effects of form and motion on judgments of social robots’ animacy, likability, trustworthiness and unpleasantness. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Studies 90, 27–38 (2016). · DOI
  35. van den Brule, R., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D. H. & Haselager, P. Do robot performance and behavioral style affect human trust? Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 519–531 (2014). · DOI
  36. Song, S. & Yamada, S. Expressing emotions through color, sound, and vibration with an appearance-constrained social robot. In 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction 2–11 (IEEE, 2017). · DOI
  37. Paradeda, R. B., Hashemian, M., Rodrigues, R. A. & Paiva, A. How facial expressions and small talk may influence trust in a robot. In International Conference on Social Robotics 169–178 (Springer, 2016). · DOI
  38. Epstein, Z., Levine, S., Rand, D. G. & Rahwan, I. Who gets credit for AI-generated art? iScience 23, 101515 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  39. Cho, M., Lee, S.-s. & Lee, K.-P. Once a kind friend is now a thing: understanding how conversational agents at home are forgotten. In Proc. 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 1557–1569 (ACM, 2019). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Johnson-Laird, P. N. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness 6 (Harvard Univ. Press, 1983).
  41. Rutjes, H., Willemsen, M. & IJsselsteijn, W. Considerations on explainable AI and users’ mental models. In CHI 2019 Workshop: Where is the Human? Bridging the Gap Between AI and HCI (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019).
  42. Kieras, D. E. & Bovair, S. The role of a mental model in learning to operate a device. Cogn. Sci. 8, 255–273 (1984). · DOI · Paper page
  43. Bower, A. H. & Steyvers, M. Perceptions of AI engaging in human expression. Sci. Rep. 11, 21181 (2021). · DOI
  44. Finn, E. & Wylie, R. Collaborative imagination: a methodological approach. Futures 132, 102788 (2021). · DOI
  45. Jasanoff, S. & Kim, S.-H. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (Univ. Chicago Press, 2015). · DOI
  46. Finn, E. What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing (MIT Press, 2017). · DOI
  47. Hudson, A. D., Finn, E. & Wylie, R. What can science fiction tell us about the future of artificial intelligence policy? AI Soc. 38, 197–211 (2021). · DOI
  48. Hildt, E. Artificial intelligence: does consciousness matter? Front. Psychol. 10, 1535 (2019). · DOI
  49. Yampolskiy, R. V. Taxonomy of pathways to dangerous artificial intelligence. In Workshops at the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2016).
  50. Kounev, S. et al. in Self-Aware Computing Systems 3–16 (Springer, 2017). · DOI
  51. Martínez, E. & Winter, C. Protecting sentient artificial intelligence: a survey of lay intuitions on standing, personhood, and general legal protection. Front. Robot. AI 8, 367 (2021). · DOI
  52. Cave, S., Coughlan, K. & Dihal, K. “Scary robots" examining public responses to AI. In Proc. 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 331–337 (ACM, 2019). · DOI
  53. Cave, S. & Dihal, K. Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 74–78 (2019). · DOI
  54. Bingaman, J., Brewer, P. R., Paintsil, A. & Wilson, D. C. "Siri, show me scary images of AI": effects of text-based frames and visuals on support for artificial intelligence. Science Commun. 43, 388–401 (2021). · DOI
  55. Chubb, J., Reed, D. & Cowling, P. Expert views about missing AI narratives: is there an AI story crisis? AI Soc. 1–20 (2022). · DOI
  56. Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. General Psychol. 2, 175–220 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  57. Ekström, A. G., Niehorster, D. C. & Olsson, E. J. Self-imposed filter bubbles: selective attention and exposure in online search. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 7, 100226 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  58. Harrington, A. The many meanings of the placebo effect: where they came from, why they matter. Biosocieties 1, 181–193 (2006). · DOI
  59. Colagiuri, B., Schenk, L. A., Kessler, M. D., Dorsey, S. G. & Colloca, L. The placebo effect: from concepts to genes. Neuroscience 307, 171–190 (2015). · DOI
  60. Denisova, A. & Cairns, P. The placebo effect in digital games: phantom perception of adaptive artificial intelligence. In Proc. 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer–Human Interaction in Play 23–33 (ACM, 2015). · DOI
  61. Friedrich, A., Flunger, B., Nagengast, B., Jonkmann, K. & Trautwein, U. Pygmalion effects in the classroom: teacher expectancy effects on students’ math achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 41, 1–12 (2015). · DOI
  62. Rosenthal, R. in Improving Academic Achievement 25–36 (Academic, 2002). · DOI
  63. Gill, K. S. Artificial intelligence: looking though the Pygmalion Lens. AI Soc. 33, 459–465 (2018). · DOI
  64. Cave, S., Dihal, K. & Dillon, S. AI Narratives: A History of Imaginative Thinking About Intelligent Machines (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020). · DOI · Paper page
  65. Paiva, A., Leite, I., Boukricha, H. & Wachsmuth, I. Empathy in virtual agents and robots: a survey. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 7, 1–40 (2017). · DOI
  66. Yalcin, Ó. N. & DiPaola, S. A computational model of empathy for interactive agents. Biol. Inspired Cogn. Architect. 26, 20–25 (2018).
  67. Groh, M., Ferguson, C., Lewis, R. & Picard, R. Computational empathy counteracts the negative effects of anger on creative problem solving. In 10th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (IEEE, 2022). · DOI
  68. De Vignemont, F. & Singer, T. The empathic brain: how, when and why? Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 435–441 (2006). · DOI
  69. Birkhäuer, J. et al. Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: a meta-analysis. PloS ONE 12, e0170988 (2017). · DOI
  70. Evers, A. W. et al. Implications of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice: expert consensus. Psychother. Psychosom. 87, 204–210 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  71. Leibowitz, K. A., Hardebeck, E. J., Goyer, J. P. & Crum, A. J. The role of patient beliefs in open-label placebo effects. Health Psychol. 38, 613 (2019). · DOI
  72. Harrington, A. The Placebo Effect: An Interdisciplinary Exploration Vol. 8 (Harvard Univ. Press, 1999).
  73. Danry, V., Pataranutaporn, P., Mueller, F., Maes, P. & Leigh, S.-w. On eliciting a sense of self when integrating with computers. In AHs ‘22: Proc. Augmented Humans International Conference 68–81 (ACM., 2022). · DOI
  74. Schepman, A. & Rodway, P. Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 1, 100014 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  75. See, A., Roller, S., Kiela, D. & Weston, J. What makes a good conversation? How controllable attributes affect human judgments. In Proc. 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol. 1 (Long and Short Papers) https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1170 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019). · DOI · Paper page
  76. Kosch, T., Welsch, R., Chuang, L. & Schmidt, A. The placebo effect of artificial intelligence in human–computer interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. https://doi.org/10.1145/3529225 (2022). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pataranutaporn, P., Liu, R., Finn, E., & Maes, P.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-10-02
Volume
5
Issue
10
Pages
1076-1086
ISSN
2522-5839
DOI
10.1038/s42256-023-00720-7
Cited by
192
References
17
Language
en
Licence

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