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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The growing variety of media agents, however, led to research that supported different explanatory mechanisms for the effects of CASA (e.g., Gong & Nass, 2007).”
From Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm (2020) · cites this paper as Gong & Nass, 2007
In the citing paper
“Anthropomorphism is a key determinant of how media agents are evaluated (Blascovich et al., 2002; Gong & Nass, 2007; E. J. Lee, 2010a, 2010b; Rosenthal-Von der Pütten & Krämer, 2014).”
From Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm (2020) · cites this paper as Gong & Nass, 2007
In the citing paper
“These findings expand on the work of communication scholars who have either focused on resulting perceptions but not beneficial outcomes of disclosure (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Gong & Nass, 2007) or on beneficial outcomes when the listener is always human, but not when the listener is a computer (Jones & Wirtz, 2006).”
From Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot (2018) · cites this paper as Gong & Nass, 2007
Citations
Cites
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
Guitton, H., & Siegel, S. (1958) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3498751 · Cited by 35,279
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,559
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467
Psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1986) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,626
Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences
McGinn, L. C. (1957) · Journal of the Franklin Institute · doi:10.1016/0016-0032(57)90766-4 · Cited by 7,284
Hearing lips and seeing voices
MCGURK, H., & MACDONALD, J. (1976) · Nature · doi:10.1038/264746a0 · Cited by 6,183
Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 · Cited by 5,500
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 · Cited by 5,219
Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change
Marquart, F., & Naderer, B. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-09923-7_20 · Cited by 5,011
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Berger C. R, 2005, Journal of Communication, 55, 415, 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02680.x · DOI
- Fiske S. T., 1991, Social cognition
- 10.1037//0033-2909.85.4.845 · DOI
- Kiesler S., 1996, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 47, 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.47 · DOI
- Lee E.-J., 2002, Human Communication Research, 28, 349
- Lester J. C., 1997, Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 23
- 10.1037//0033-2909.109.2.163 · DOI · Paper page
- Nass C., 1999, Proceedings of the International Auditory-Visual Speech Processing Conference, 1
- Pomerantz J. R., 1986, Handbook of perception and human performance, vol. 2: Cognitive processes and performance, 36
- Reeves B., 1993, New televisions: The effects of big pictures and big sound on viewer responses to the screen
- Ritter M., 1999, Proceedings of the International Auditory-Visual Speech Processing Conference, 163
- Slater M. D., 2002, Communication Theory, 1, 173
- Slobin D. I, 1979, Psycholinguistics
- 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
Go, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.020 · Cited by 1,089
Service robot implementation: a theoretical framework and research agenda
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Schepers, J. (2019) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2019.1672666 · Cited by 798
Ho, A., Hancock, J., & Miner, A. S. (2018) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1093/joc/jqy026 · Cited by 629
“…on the work of communication scholars who have either focused on resulting perceptions but not bene fi cial outcomes of disclosure (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Gong & Nass, 2007) or on bene fi cial outcomes when the listener is always human, but not when the listener is a computer (Jones & Wirtz, 2006).”
BackgroundBuilding a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm
Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. (2020) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.1.5 · Cited by 626
“Anthropomorphism is a key determinant of how media agents are evaluated (Blascovich et al., 2002; Gong & Nass, 2007; E. J. Lee, 2010a, 2010b; Rosenthal-Von der Pütten & Krämer, 2014).”
BackgroundAnthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless?
Kim, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2012) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006 · Cited by 462
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
- 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
- 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
