CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is Interaction Between Human and Artificial Intelligence–Driven Agents (Para)Social? A Scoping Review

Liu, Dandan·2025·Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
DOI 10.1089/cyber.2024.0532
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite the growing presence of artificial intelligence (AI)-based agents in human daily life, there remains a dearth of exploration and synthesized evidence on the social aspects of human–AI interaction. Researchers have increasingly viewed AI agents as a distinct form of media persona, sparking interest in the phenomenon of parasocial interaction (PSI) with these entities. Building on this emerging area of inquiry, this scoping review aims to examine the applicability of the parasocial concept to human–AI agent interactions and to evaluate whether these interactions can be considered “parasocial.” Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the findings suggest a propensity to misconstrue PSI in terms of reciprocity and sociability within the context of enhanced interactivity in human–AI communication. This study contributes to parasocial theory building and offers critical insights for future human–AI PSI research, underscoring the importance of applying the parasocial concept within its intended conceptual boundaries, particularly in the field of human–AI and broader human–machine communication.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/cyber.2024.0532

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • Current parasocial theory and measurement tools were developed for passive media environments and do not match the interactive, conversational nature of generative AI companions.

    “Yet current parasocial theory and measurement tools were developed for passive media environments and do not match the interactive, conversational nature of generative AI companions [22, 80].”

    From Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [80]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Edwards A. Animals, humans, and machines: Interactive implications of ontological classification. In: Guzman AL., editor. Human-machine communication: Rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves. Peter Lang; 2018; pp. 29–50.
  2. 10.1177/1461444819858691 · DOI
  3. 10.1093/hcr/hqac008 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1093/hcr/hqac009 · DOI
  5. 10.1080/15213269.2022.2084111 · DOI
  6. Maeda T Quan-Haase A. When human-AI interactions become parasocial: Agency and anthropomorphism in affective design. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency 2024 Jun 3 (pp. 1068–1077). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Reeves B, , Nass C. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications: CA; 1996.
  8. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.003 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.003 · DOI
  10. 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1111/hcre.12063 · DOI
  13. 10.30658/hmc.2.2 · DOI
  14. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197650677.013.3 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Mays N, , Roberts E, , Popay J. Synthesising research evidence. In: Fulop N, , Allen P, , Clarke A., et al. editors. Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods. Routledge: London; 2001; pp. 188–220.
  17. Lemaignan S, , Warnier M, , Sisbot AE, et al. Human-robot interaction: Tackling the AI challenges. Artif Intell, 2014.
  18. 10.1007/978-3-319-96722-6_11 · DOI
  19. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Liebers N, , Schramm H. Parasocial interactions and relationships with media characters–an inventory of 60 years of research. Commun Res Tre, 2019; 38(2):4–31.
  21. 10.1002/hbe2.271 · DOI
  22. 10.1007/s10796-023-10425-2 · DOI
  23. 10.1108/JRIM-11-2019-0179 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121711 · DOI
  25. 10.3390/su15086388 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/00913367.2021.1880345 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1089/cyber.2020.0546 · DOI
  28. Jin D, , Abas WAW, , Kamarudin S. Instagram users’ para-social interactions with virtual influencers: The mediating role of human-likeness, perceived similarity, and wishful identification. Int J Bus Tec Mana, 2023; 5(2):114–126; doi: 10.55057/ijbtm.2023.5.2.11 · DOI
  29. Khuat H. From pixels to fame: An empirical study of virtual influencers and gen Z customer engagement [Master’s Thesis]. Jyväskylä University; 2023.
  30. 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107897 · DOI
  31. 10.1504/IJIMA.2022.126735 · DOI
  32. 10.5817/CP2022-4-3 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/978-3-031-06038-0_8 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/08838158709386664 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00129.x · DOI
  36. 10.1162/PRES_a_00001 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10662 · DOI
  38. 10.15187/adr.2020.08.33.3.127 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106721 · DOI
  40. 10.1515/COMM.2008.025 · DOI
  41. 10.1177/14614448221102900 · DOI
  42. 10.1007/978-3-031-15342-6_6 · DOI
  43. 10.3390/computers12040077 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1007/978-3-031-14961-0_10 · DOI
  46. 10.1007/s12369-014-0263-x · DOI
  47. Reinkemeier F Gnewuch U Toporowski W. Can humanizing voice assistants unleash the potential of voice commerce? In Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2022); 2022; Kopenhagen Dänemark.
  48. 10.1108/JSM-04-2022-0126 · DOI
  49. 10.3390/su15010872 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103209 · DOI
  51. Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. 1985. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, PhD dissertation. MIT Libraries, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192
  52. 10.4135/9781529782783.n36 · DOI
  53. 10.4018/978-1-5225-3229-3.ch002 · DOI
  54. Short J, , Williams E, , Christie B. The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley; 1976.
  55. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x · DOI
  56. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.x · DOI
  57. 10.1027/1864-1105/a000044 · DOI
  58. 10.4324/9780203926864-18 · DOI
  59. 10.1177/0093650209356389 · DOI
  60. 10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8 · DOI
  61. 10.1093/jcmc/zmac027 · DOI
  62. 10.1007/978-3-031-23161-2_463 · DOI
  63. Feng Y. From fun to fantasy: Gaming experiences, perceived presence, and adolescent romantic parasocial attachments in romantic video games. Psychol Pop Media. 2024; doi: 10.1037/ppm0000538 · DOI
  64. Kavli K. The player’s parasocial interaction with digital entities. In Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference (MindTrek ‘12); 2012; NY USA. pp. 83–89. doi:10.1145/2393132.2393150 · DOI
  65. 10.1177/20501579241257907 · DOI
  66. 10.1080/23808985.2013.11679153 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Liu, D.
Affiliations
School of Communication, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
ORCID
Liu, Dandan
Venue
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2025-08
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
551-558
ISSN
  • 2152-2715
  • 2152-2723
DOI
10.1089/cyber.2024.0532
Cited by
14
References
11
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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