CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 168Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsSpeech and dialogue systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When a Talking-Face Computer Agent is Half-Human and Half-Humanoid: Human Identity and Consistency Preference

Gong, Li, Nass, Clifford·2007·Human Communication Research
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00295.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Computer-generated anthropomorphic characters are a growing type of communicator that is deployed in digital communication environments. An essential theoretical question is how people identify humanlike but clearly artificial, hence humanoid, entities in comparison to natural human ones. This identity categorization inquiry was approached under the framework of consistency and tested through examining inconsistency effects from mismatching categories. Study 1 (N = 80), incorporating a self-disclosure task, tested participants’ responses to a talking-face agent, which varied in four combinations of human versus humanoid faces and voices. In line with the literature on inconsistency, the pairing of a human face with a humanoid voice or a humanoid face with a human voice led to longer processing time in making judgment of the agent and less trust than the pairing of a face and a voice from either the human or the humanoid category. Female users particularly showed negative attitudes toward inconsistently paired talking faces. Study 2 (N = 80), using a task that stressed comprehension demand, replicated the inconsistency effects on judging time and females’ negative attitudes but not for comprehension-related outcomes. Voice clarity overshadowed the consistency concern for comprehension-related responses. The overall inconsistency effects suggest that people treat humanoid entities in a different category from natural human ones.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00295.x

Cites

73 of 73 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 75 references

2 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Berger C. R, 2005, Journal of Communication, 55, 415, 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02680.x · DOI
  2. Fiske S. T., 1991, Social cognition
  3. 10.1037//0033-2909.85.4.845 · DOI
  4. Kiesler S., 1996, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 47, 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.47 · DOI
  5. Lee E.-J., 2002, Human Communication Research, 28, 349
  6. Lester J. C., 1997, Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 23
  7. 10.1037//0033-2909.109.2.163 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Nass C., 1999, Proceedings of the International Auditory-Visual Speech Processing Conference, 1
  9. Pomerantz J. R., 1986, Handbook of perception and human performance, vol. 2: Cognitive processes and performance, 36
  10. Reeves B., 1993, New televisions: The effects of big pictures and big sound on viewer responses to the screen
  11. Ritter M., 1999, Proceedings of the International Auditory-Visual Speech Processing Conference, 163
  12. Slater M. D., 2002, Communication Theory, 1, 173
  13. Slobin D. I, 1979, Psycholinguistics
  14. W Tanaka . (2000 , October 15). Face to face: Talking images to add human touch to e-shops . , pp. 3F -4F .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–168 of 168

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gong, L., & Nass, C.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
Human Communication Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2007-04
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
163-193
ISSN
  • 0360-3989 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2958
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00295.x
OpenAlex
W2001429584
Cited by
168
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
7.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 3075 d)
Locations
Human Communication Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
anthropomorphic characters, consistency effect, self-disclosure, voice clarity, gender differences, digital communication environment

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