The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 40 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
"Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults
Open accessAbstract
As voice-based conversational agents such as Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant move into our homes, researchers have studied the corresponding privacy implications, embeddedness in these complex social environments, and use by specific user groups. Yet it is unknown how users categorize these devices: are they thought of as just another object, like a toaster? As a social companion? Though past work hints to human-like attributes that are ported onto these devices, the anthropomorphization of voice assistants has not been studied in depth. Through a study deploying Amazon Echo Dot Devices in the homes of older adults, we provide a preliminary assessment of how individuals 1) perceive having social interactions with the voice agent, and 2) ontologically categorize the voice assistants. Our discussion contributes to an understanding of how well-developed theories of anthropomorphism apply to voice assistants, such as how the socioemotional context of the user (e.g., loneliness) drives increased anthropomorphism. We conclude with recommendations for designing voice assistants with the ontological category in mind, as well as implications for the design of technologies for social companionship for older adults.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own result · 21 No full text of the sources · 9 Own interpretation · 7 Own method · 4 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · 1 Not supported · 1 Sources not found · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Like work on robots [28], we find that the natural language conversation and the responsiveness of these devices is what make them social.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2.1 Qualities of Interaction: Natural Language and Responsiveness.
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [28] 28. Raya A Jones. 2017. What makes a robot 'social'? Social Studies of Science 47, 4: 556-579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717704722 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Pinpointing robot sociality” (page unavailable), Jones distinguishes observable conversation from the dialogicality of a social act and says conversational turn-taking cannot create that quality. The paper treats conversational responsiveness as a feature of robot design, not as sufficient to make a robot social; it also excludes disembodied AIs from its working definition of social robots (“The HRI context,” page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.85)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On our first pass opencoding the transcripts, we found attributions of the device as human-like appearing throughout the data.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.3 Data Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were instances when users' perceptions of Alexa did not clearly classify into “human-like” or “object-like””
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.1.3 Neither human nor object.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that most participants in our study -all but P3 and P6 -used polite terms, such as “please” and “thank you” when using Alexa.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.1.2 Polite Behaviors and Personification.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like this previous work, all participants in our study referred to Alexa as “she” or “her” multiple times during interviews.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.1.1 Inconsistent Use of Personal Pronouns.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, participants sometimes used object pronouns (e.g., “it”) when they were attributing human-like behavior to the device”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.1.1 Inconsistent Use of Personal Pronouns.
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings indicate that one of the factors resulting in anthropomorphism of the voice assistant was a desire for social contact and affiliation.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.4 Social Interactions Using Conversational Voice Assistants for Older Adults
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, when participants felt as though the device was not responding to them specifically, they perceived the device to be more like an object.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2.2
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to the polite behavior described above, about half of the participants mentioned greeting Alexa at morning or at night.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2.1 Qualities of Interaction: Natural Language and Responsiveness.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Movement occurs based on factors specific to the characteristics of the voice assistant (such as nature of interaction) or the user (desire for social contact or affiliation), along with the location and moment of interaction.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 5 CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Researchers have also studied how people from different age groups perceive robots, finding that younger, mid-aged and older adults have similar attitudes towards comfort and social impacts of robots [3].”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 2.3 Technology-Mediated Social Support for Older Adults
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [3] 3. Uba Backonja, Amanda K. Hall, Ian Painter, Laura Kneale, Amanda Lazar, Maya Cakmak, Hilaire J. Thompson, and George Demiris. 2018. Comfort and Attitudes Towards Robots Among Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 50, 6: 623-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12430 source
The Conclusions state that younger, middle-aged, and older adults responded similarly regarding robots’ social impact and comfort with robots. They note some differences between age groups, but say almost all perceptions were similar. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Specific to older adults, some studies in HCI and HRI indicate older adults' preference for using robots for household purposes more than for companionship [5,13]”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 2.3 Technology-Mediated Social Support for Older Adults
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [5] 5. J. M. Beer, C. Smarr, T. L. Chen, A. Prakash, T. L. Mitzner, C. C. Kemp, and W. A. Rogers. 2012. The domesticated robot: Design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157806 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Assistance Preference Checklist Data; page unavailable) report that older adults preferred robot assistance for many household tasks, particularly cleaning. The study compared robot versus human assistance for home-based tasks; it did not compare household uses of robots with companionship, so the claimed relative preference is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [13] 13. K. Dautenhahn, S. Woods, C. Kaouri, M. L. Walters, and and I. Werry. 2005. What is a robot companion -friend, assistant or butler? In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1192-1197. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2005.1545189 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Acceptance of robot companions” (page unavailable), 96.4% of participants wanted a robot that could do household jobs, while none of the study’s older participants wanted one as a friend. But the study’s limitations (page unavailable) state that no participant was older than 55, so its findings do not establish this preference for older adults generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In HRI literature although there is some evidence suggesting technology in form of social robots can reduce loneliness for older adults (e.g., [4,31])”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.4 Social Interactions Using Conversational Voice Assistants for Older Adults
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] 4. Marian R. Banks, Lisa M. Willoughby, and William A. Banks. 2008. Animal-Assisted Therapy and Loneliness in Nursing Homes: Use of Robotic versus Living Dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 9, 3: 173- 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007 source
- Supportedcites [31] 31. Masao Kanamori, Mizue Suzuki, and Misao Tanaka. 2002. Maintenance and improvement of quality of life among elderly patients using a pet-type robot. Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi. Japanese Journal of Geriatrics 39, 2: 214-218. source
The Abstract (p. 216) reports a statistically significant decrease in loneliness scores after older patients interacted with the pet-type robot AIBO. The Discussion (p. 217) also describes a significant reduction, supporting the citing sentence’s cautious claim that social robots can reduce loneliness in older adults. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike that past work, though, participants in our study also saw Alexa as human-like and object-like, and moved between these categorizations.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.1.3 Neither human nor object.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such as”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 5 CONCLUSIONS
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These examples show how the human-like vs. machine-like categorization changed over time.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2.3 Changes over the Longer Term, Location and from Moment to Moment.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Just as Alexa was seen as providing social interaction when it was responsive and engaging in small talk, it reverted to an object when it did not provide these forms of interaction.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2.1 Qualities of Interaction: Natural Language and Responsiveness.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, participants personified the agent when supporting human-like conversations or providing social support, but also dehumanized it due to lack of responsiveness or personal touch.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.2 Ontological Categorization of Voice Assistants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similar to past work [57], we found that Alexa was repeatedly referred to in human-like terms.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2 The Social Role of Alexa: Movement between Ontological Categories
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [57] 57. Alisha Pradhan, Kanika Mehta, and Leah Findlater. 2018. "Accessibility Came by Accident": Use of Voice-Controlled Intelligent Personal Assistants by People with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), 459:1-459:13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174033 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When participants felt the device's presence (i.e., perceived ubiquitousness), they thought of it as human-like.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2.3 Changes over the Longer Term, Location and from Moment to Moment. · plain
“This presence was tied to a location: their home.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2.3 Changes over the Longer Term, Location and from Moment to Moment.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.2.3 Changes over the Longer Term, Location and from Moment to Moment. · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our study, some attached more value and deeper feelings to the assistant, while others considered the interactions as mostly inconsequential.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.2 Ontological Categorization of Voice Assistants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Aligning with the complex categorizations of other participants, P5 refused to categorize Alexa at all, instead designating a new category:”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 5 CONCLUSIONS
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Like other in-depth qualitative work with a small sample size, we do not intend to obtain generalizable results [32,47].”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.4 Limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] 32. Evangelos Karapanos, Jean-Bernard Martens, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2010. On the Retrospective Assessment of Users' Experiences over Time: Memory or Actuality? In CHI '10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '10), 4075-4080. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1754105 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] 47. Irene Lopatovska and Harriet Williams. 2018. Personification of the Amazon Alexa: BFF or a Mindless Companion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction&Retrieval -CHIIR '18, 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1145/3176349.3176868 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Epley et al. [17] enlist three factors-“elicited agent knowledge or anthropocentric knowledge”, “effectance motivation”, and “sociality”-to explain anthropomorphizing behavior”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 2.2 Anthropomorphism of Technology
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] 17. Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 4: 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The nature of each these primary commands was coded as “polite”, “rude” or “neutral” using a using a multi-step process by two research team members [24], achieving a Cohen's Kappa of 0.91.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.3 Data Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Daniel J. Hruschka, Deborah Schwartz, Daphne Cobb St.John, Erin Picone-Decaro, Richard A. Jenkins, and James W. Carey. 2004. Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research. Field Methods 16, 3: 307-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X04266540 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The quote above indicates that polite behavior such as saying thank you is learned over time until it becomes natural -resonating with past work [46].”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.1.2 Polite Behaviors and Personification.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [46] 46. Yuting Liao, Jessica Vitak, Priya Kumar, Michael Zimmer, and Katherine Kritikos. 2019. Understanding the Role of Privacy and Trust in Intelligent Personal Assistant Adoption. In Information in Contemporary Society (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 102-113. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These calls provided us with daily interaction data that helped us to probe for indepth explanations during weekly in-person interviews, but may also have resulted in an increased usage of Alexa due to reminders about its presence.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.4 Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the population with whom we engaged, though diverse in some ways, has a specific set of characteristics -they are all over 65, had no experience with voice assistants, and did not use smartphones, computers or tablets regularly.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.4 Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hope et al. [22] identified that older adults' “social communications” include both physical and digital spaces (e.g., printing out a typed letter and sending it through physical mail), which is lacking in the current day social media technologies.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 2.3 Technology-Mediated Social Support for Older Adults
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] 22. Alexis Hope, Ted Schwaba, and Anne Marie Piper. 2014. Understanding digital and material social communications for older adults. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems -CHI '14, 3903-3912. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557133 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In this work, our analysis primarily draws upon linguistic theory, that everyday language used to label objects can reveal ontologies [18], also corroborated with several instances of self-reported participants' mental states (e.g., the feeling of not being alone in the house), thus drawing on the mentalistic theory as well.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.2 Ontological Categorization of Voice Assistants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [18] 18. Brian Epstein. 2018. Social Ontology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Epley's framework, which has not yet been applied to conversational voice assistants, claims that self-knowledge or knowledge about human characteristics in general would serve as the readily available (or accessible) induction base for reasoning of nonhuman objects, thus contributing to easily available anthropocentric knowledge.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2.1 Qualities of Interaction: Natural Language and Responsiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] 17. Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 4: 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that the perception of Alexa as human-like emerged when it was filling a social need for her -and it might return to object-like when she no longer needed it.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > "And it calls my name, "Good morning
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, there has been a significant body of research on anthropomorphization that has not yet been applied to this domain.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 2.2 Anthropomorphism of Technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Our understanding of the relationship between anthropomorphism, embodiment and voice assistants, although grounded in past work, is based on a specific sample as is common with qualitative work on smart speakers (e.g., children [16], people with disabilities [56] or multi-user family based households [54]).”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.1 Applying Theories of Anthropomorphism to Conversational Voice Assistants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] 16. Stefania Druga, Randi Williams, Cynthia Breazeal, and Mitchel Resnick. 2017. "Hey Google is It OK if I Eat You?": Initial Explorations in Child-Agent Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '17), 595-600. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3084330 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] 56. François Portet, Michel Vacher, Caroline Golanski, Camille Roux, and Brigitte Meillon. 2013. Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: acceptability and objection aspects. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17, 1: 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0470-5 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [54] 54. Martin Porcheron, Joel E. Fischer, Moira McGregor, Barry Brown, Ewa Luger, Heloisa Candello, and Kenton O'Hara. 2017. Talking with Conversational Agents in Collaborative Action. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing -CSCW '17 Companion, 431-436. https://doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3022666 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“there are also a number of concerns including deception, infantilization, and privacy [63,70].”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.4 Social Interactions Using Conversational Voice Assistants for Older Adults
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [63] 63. Alex Sciuto, Arnita Saini, Jodi Forlizzi, and Jason I. Hong. 2018. "Hey Alexa, What's Up?": A Mixed-Methods Studies of In-Home Conversational Agent Usage. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '18), 857-868. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196772 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [70] 70. Alexandra Vtyurina and Adam Fourney. 2018. Exploring the Role of Conversational Cues in Guided Task Support with Virtual Assistants. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), 208:1-208:7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173782 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And while some of our discussion specifically addresses use of voice assistants for older adults, many of our findings are interpreted with broader significance.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.4 Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The usage logs provided us with the actual interactions to complement participants' perceptions of these interactions.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2 Data collection and device setup
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Given the ways that past theories [17,30] relate to and shed light on the behaviors of the population we study, our beliefs on the commonalities are confirmed.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.4 Limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] 17. Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 4: 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] 30. Peter H. Kahn Jr., Aimee L. Reichert, Heather E. Gary, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Solace Shen, Jolina H. Ruckert, and Brian Gill. 2011. The New Ontological Category Hypothesis in Human-robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI '11), 159-160. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957710 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Humans anthropomorphize non-humans based on their anthropocentric knowledge.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.2.1 Qualities of Interaction: Natural Language and Responsiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] 17. Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 4: 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Social motivation describes the desire for social contact or connection and social approval from other agents.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > "And it calls my name, "Good morning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] 17. Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 4: 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Although social media and social networking sites can foster social connections in general, studies have found that interfaces that merge digital and physical space may be more appealing to some older people [22,23].”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 2.3 Technology-Mediated Social Support for Older Adults
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] 22. Alexis Hope, Ted Schwaba, and Anne Marie Piper. 2014. Understanding digital and material social communications for older adults. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems -CHI '14, 3903-3912. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557133 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] 23. Dominik Hornung, Claudia Müller, Irina Shklovski, Timo Jakobi, and Volker Wulf. 2017. Navigating Relationships and Boundaries: Concerns around ICT-uptake for Elderly People. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems -CHI '17, 7057-7069. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025859 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, we extend Kahn et al.'s theory to apply to voice assistants, identifying factors that influence shifts between ontological categorizations: the voice assistant capabilities (e.g., responsiveness), desire for personalization and companionship, sustained use over time, and location and moment of interaction with the voice assistant.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.2 Ontological Categorization of Voice Assistants
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To understand a particular phenomenon -how “politeness” appears in conversations with Alexa -we analyzed the usage logs, as we wanted to understand users' actual interactions in addition to their perceptions of these interactions.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.3 Data Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Past work has found that technology-mediated social interaction can be a form of at times unwelcome additional work for older adults as they feel that they must put in effort, be social and gracious while using such systems [43].”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 4.4 Social Interactions Using Conversational Voice Assistants for Older Adults
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Amanda Lazar, Christian Koehler, Joshua Tanenbaum, and David H. Nguyen. 2015. Why we use and abandon smart devices. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing - UbiComp '15, 635-646. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804288 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Smart speakers have unique qualities compared to smartphone-based voice assistants: they support verbal conversational interaction with no visual output, are always-on and always listening, and are placed in the home environment.
“Compared to smartphone-based voice assistants (e.g., Siri), smart speakers have unique qualities.They support verbal conversational interaction, most often with no visual output.Smart speakers are also “always-on” and “always listening”, and are placed in the social, collaborative, semi-private home environment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The socioemotional context of the user (e.g., loneliness) drives increased anthropomorphism.
“Our discussion contributes to an understanding of how well-developed theories of anthropomorphism apply to voice assistants, such as how the socioemotional context of the user (e.g., loneliness) drives increased anthropomorphism.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Older adults experience 'moments of loneliness'.
“As we investigate the opportunity for voice assistants to alleviate”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Research ston VA use suggests that older adults' VA use resembles general use by all populations [1] such as listening to music, searching for general and health information, engaging in casual conversations, checking the date, time, or weather, and setting reminders [10,11,23,25,32].”
From Studying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Past research reports that older adults use voice assistants for checking the date, time, or weather; playing music; and searching for general information [11,23,32], similar to how younger adults use voice assistants [1].”
From Studying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Regularly updated flyers in a one-page format that could be kept close to the device were more effective than a onetime flyer researchers have used in the past [23].”
From Studying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Despite older adults' desires to have conversational interactions with VAs, current commercial VA capabilities are far more limited [48].”
From Situated Understanding of Errors in Older Adults' Interactions with Voice Assistants: A Month-Long, In-Home Study (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“older adults prefer and initially attempt a more conversational interaction style [48].”
From Situated Understanding of Errors in Older Adults' Interactions with Voice Assistants: A Month-Long, In-Home Study (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“An important aspect of older adults and their usage of CAs is their tendency to anthropomorphize the device as a companion within their home environment [6,35].”
From A Collaborative Approach to Support Medication Management in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment Using Conversational Assistants (CAs) (2022) · cites this paper as [35]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Existing research has explored how older adults have used and perceived existing features of voice-only VAs [16, 43, 57, 58, 72], but the potential merits and setbacks of the secondary touchscreen modality are underexplored.”
From Screen or No Screen? Lessons Learnt from a Real-World Deployment Study of Using Voice Assistants With and Without Touchscreen for Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, most prior works (e.g., [57, 72]) only focused on general uses (e.g., music) of VAs for older adults, rather than healthcare applications, which are indispensable use cases [15, 16].”
From Screen or No Screen? Lessons Learnt from a Real-World Deployment Study of Using Voice Assistants With and Without Touchscreen for Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Despite knowing these limitations, users expressed conversational and companionship as a benefit [11], based on having casual conversations [23] in a question-and-answer format [11].”
From Studying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For instance, various studies demonstrated that smart speakers are used by older adults daily [10] for physical [22,23], mental [7,32], and social health [8,31].”
From Smart Speakers for Health and Well-Being of Older Adults: A Mixed-Methods Review (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, there is a comparatively signifcant body of work (e.g., [57,87]) studying how VUIs could provide companionship to older adults.”
From OK Google, Let's Learn: Using Voice User Interfaces for Informal Self-Regulated Learning of Health Topics among Younger and Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [87]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While researchers have investigated older adults' long-term interactions with VAs at home-focusing on their adoption of the technology, its benefits and challenges, and their perceptions of the experience [28, 48, 49, 51]-a significant research gap remains in the area of comprehensive error analysis.”
From Situated Understanding of Errors in Older Adults' Interactions with Voice Assistants: A Month-Long, In-Home Study (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“this could stem from the fact that older adults tend to favor polite interactions, both in their own communications to VAs [48] and when receiving their responses [23].”
From Situated Understanding of Errors in Older Adults' Interactions with Voice Assistants: A Month-Long, In-Home Study (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Further, such structured command names limited older adults' ability to discover new skills [23].”
From Studying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Older adults may face difficulty discovering and remembering commands associated with VA skills [23,31].”
From Studying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“To mitigate these challenges, older adults often employ trial-and-error approaches [6,11], often giving up after rephrasing their commands several times and receiving no response from the system [23].”
From Studying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“For example, older adults may face challenges in discovering commands related to unknown or new skills, [23,28] and remembering the language used to initiate complex commands (e.g.reminders) [23].”
From Studying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Due to the speech-based nature of VUIs, they are comparatively more accessible to older adults [87,88,107] and people with disabilities [102].”
From OK Google, Let's Learn: Using Voice User Interfaces for Informal Self-Regulated Learning of Health Topics among Younger and Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [87]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“This finding is also supported by Pradhan et al. [62], who found older adults ontologically cat-egorized VUIs as a person as well as an object (or something in between).”
From Examining Humanness as a Metaphor to Design Voice User Interfaces (2024) · cites this paper as [62]
In the citing paper
“Although users perceived VUIs to be human, non-human, or something in between [14, 62]”
From Examining Humanness as a Metaphor to Design Voice User Interfaces (2024) · cites this paper as [62]
In the citing paper
“they perceive VUIs as social companions [29,43], capable of alleviating loneliness.”
From Using Experience-Based Participatory Approach to Design Interactive Voice User Interfaces for Delivering Physical Activity Programs with Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [43]
In the citing paper
“Further, in a longitudinal study with seven older adults, Pradhan et al. [43] found that older adults anthropomorphized older adults (as per the CASA paradigm [37]) using he or she pronouns and described them as friends.”
From Using Experience-Based Participatory Approach to Design Interactive Voice User Interfaces for Delivering Physical Activity Programs with Older Adults (2023) · cites this paper as [43]
In the citing paper
“Additionally, older adults are often unfamiliar with how to initiate a conversation with VUIs [38,51] and what to do during a conversational breakdown.”
From “A Painless Way to Learn:” Designing an Interactive Storytelling Voice User Interface to Engage Older Adults in Informal Health Information Learning (2023) · cites this paper as [51]
In the citing paper
“Due to voice acting as an input modality, VUIs are often anthropomorphized [21,51]-with users projecting traits like intelligence, likeability, and trust onto them.”
From “A Painless Way to Learn:” Designing an Interactive Storytelling Voice User Interface to Engage Older Adults in Informal Health Information Learning (2023) · cites this paper as [51]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > 3.1.1 Inconsistent Use of Personal Pronouns.
“Lopatovska and Williams [46] attribute participants' use of the word "she" to anthropomorphizing the voice assistant Alexa.”
§ "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults > References
“46. Yuting Liao, Jessica Vitak, Priya Kumar, Michael Zimmer, and Katherine Kritikos. 2019. Understanding the Role of Privacy and Trust in Intelligent Personal Assistant Adoption.”
Citations
Cites
(2014) · Cited by 15,747
Qualitative research & evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (2002) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 15,530
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3702 · Cited by 4,872
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069 · cited 10×
“Reflecting on these codes, we determined that Epley et al. ’s [17] “t hree-factor theory of anthropomorphism ” could be a useful analytic lens on our data.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMachines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153 · Cited by 4,022 · cited 2×
“Past work has drawn on Nass et al. ’s notion of “overlearned social behaviors” [50] to explain personification of voice assistants [46].”
BackgroundNass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/191666.191703 · Cited by 2,148
Breazeal, C. (2002) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2376.001.0001 · Cited by 1,615
Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2012) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 · Cited by 985
Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research
Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St.John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x04266540 · Cited by 829
Voice Interfaces in Everyday Life
Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., Reeves, S., & Sharples, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174214 · Cited by 717 · cited 9×
“Much of the research on voice assistants has focused on understanding general use in the home environment [53,54,62] or on the privacy and security aspects of this “always on” and “always l istening” technology [40,45].”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Brian Epstein . 2018. Social Ontology . In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 ), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University . Brian Epstein. 2018. Social Ontology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- Google. Create a persona - Conversation design process - Conversation design. Retrieved April 2, 2019 from https://designguidelines.withgoogle.com/conversation/conversation-design-process/create-a-persona.html#create-a-persona-how-do-i-create-one Google. Create a persona - Conversation design process - Conversation design. Retrieved April 2, 2019 from https://designguidelines.withgoogle.com/conversation/conversation-design-process/create-a-persona.html#create-a-persona-how-do-i-create-one
- Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin . 2017 . Barriers to adoption and attitudes towards tech among older Americans | Pew Research Center . Retrieved June 24, 2019 from https://www.pewinternet.org/2017/05/17/barriers-to-adoption-and-attitudes-towards-technology/ Monica Anderson and Andrew Perrin. 2017. Barriers to adoption and attitudes towards tech among older Americans | Pew Research Center. Retrieved June 24, 2019 from https://www.pewinternet.org/2017/05/17/barriers-to-adoption-and-attitudes-towards-technology/
- Victoria Turk. 2016. Home invasion. New Scientist 232 3104: 16--17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262--4079(16)32318--1 · DOI · Paper page
- Sherry Turkle . Connected , but alone? | Ted Talk. Retrieved June 18, 2019 from https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together Sherry Turkle. Connected, but alone? | Ted Talk. Retrieved June 18, 2019 from https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together
- Ipke Wachsmuth. 2018. Robots Like Me: Challenges and Ethical Issues in Aged Care. Frontiers in Psychology 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00432 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alexa, what do we know about conversational commerce? Insights from a systematic literature review.
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., Verma, S., & Chaturvedi, R. (2022) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21654 · Cited by 293
Kim, S., & Choudhury, A. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106914 · Cited by 200
“…(Druga et al., 2017; Garg & Sengupta, 2020), low-income populations (Robinson et al., 2018), privacy concerns (Lau et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2019), conversational aspects (Purington et al., 2017; Vtyurina & Fourney, 2018), and personification (Lopatovska & Williams, 2018; Pradhan et al., 2019).”
BackgroundJo, E., Epstein, D. A., Jung, H., & Kim, Y.-H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581503 · Cited by 174
Why Do People Use Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Enabled Voice Assistants?
Malodia, S., Islam, N., Kaur, P., & Dhir, A. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2021.3117884 · Cited by 176
Jones, V. K., Hanus, M., Yan, C., Shade, M. Y., Blaskewicz Boron, J., & Maschieri Bicudo, R. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.750736 · Cited by 111
Zubatiy, T., Vickers, K. L., Mathur, N., & Mynatt, E. D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445124 · Cited by 105
Harrington, C. N., Garg, R., Woodward, A., & Williams, D. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501995 · Cited by 98
Seymour, W., & Van Kleek, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479515 · Cited by 94
An Empirical Study of Older Adult’s Voice Assistant Use for Health Information Seeking
Brewer, R., Pierce, C., Upadhyay, P., & Park, L. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3484507 · Cited by 89
“(2019) study older adults’ language expectations with voice assistants and show how they “personify and objectify” the devices [47] and that many use voice assistants for health-related information seeking [48].”
BackgroundInfluentialDignity, Autonomy, and Style of Company
Coghlan, S., Waycott, J., Lazar, A., & Neves, B. B. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449178 · Cited by 89
“notes that the CSCW community is increasingly interested in ‘understanding social interactions mediated by robots’ [70].”
BackgroundSelf-citationUnderstanding Older Adults' Participation in Design Workshops
Pradhan, A., Jelen, B., Siek, K. A., Chan, J., & Lazar, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376299 · Cited by 75
“Emerging research [40,62,73] and popular press articles [11,35,67,86] Attending to the final design ideas of participants also reveal values associated with technology, an area of interest in HCI in general [15] and specifically with older adults [45].”
BackgroundSelf-citationCorbett, C. F., Wright, P. J., Jones, K., & Parmer, M. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.742012 · Cited by 68
“…2021 Prospective n = 12 77–95 years 4 months Google Home O’Brien, 2020 Retrospective n = 125 consumer reviews, 2015–2018 Not reported N/A Amazon Echo Pradhan, 2019 Prospective n = 7 65–83 years 3 weeks Echo Dot Scherr, 2020 Prospective n = 11 68–83 years ≥12 months Echo Show Chambers and Beaney…”
BackgroundNallam, P. T., Bhandari, S., Sanders, J., & Martin-Hammond, A. M. (2020) · Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine · doi:10.1177/2333721420985975 · Cited by 70
“There has been growing interest in using intelligent voice assistants (IVAs), such as Amazon Echo and Google Home, to support older adults (Buinhas et al., 2019; Pradhan et al., 2019; Reis et al., 2018; Sanders & Martin-Hammond, 2019; Sayago et al., 2019; Trajkova & Martin-Hammond, 2020) at home for health-related and…”
BackgroundMethodChen, C., Johnson, J. G., Charles, K., Lee, A., Lifset, E. T., Hogarth, M., Moore, A. A., Farcas, E., & Weibel, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3441852.3471218 · Cited by 67
“[67] explored the anthropomorphism aspects,”
BackgroundUnderstanding Older Adults’ Perceptions and Challenges in Using AI-enabled Everyday Technologies
Shandilya, E., & Fan, M. (2022) · International Symposium of Chinese CHI (Chinese CHI) · doi:10.1145/3565698.3565774 · Cited by 84
Seymour, W., & Kleek, M. V. (2019) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/53q6j · Cited by 64
Festerling, J., & Siraj, I. (2021) · Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s12124-021-09668-y · Cited by 88
“…2010; de Graaf, 2016; Seibt, 2017; Oranç & Küntay, 2020; Levillain & Zibetti, 2017; Mel-son et al., 2009; Bernstein & Crowley, 2008; Gaudiello et al., 2015; Jipson et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2019)), and also in the particular context of DVAs (e.g., (Fester-ling & Siraj, 2020; Pradhan et al., 2019)).”
BackgroundInfluentialJo, H. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10662 · Cited by 71
“Third, AIPA also provides friendly conversations to users and serves as a sec-retary close to humans (O'Leary, 2019; Pradhan et al., 2019).”
BackgroundExploring the Determinants of Users’ Continuance Usage Intention of Smart Voice Assistants
Pal, D., Babakerkhell, M. D., & Zhang, X. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3132399 · Cited by 62
“For example, one study in [35] related to the use of voice-assistants by elderly people show that these devices can provide socioemotional support to the users by providing them with an engaging experience that”
BackgroundEmerging Roles and Relationships Among Humans and Interactive AI Systems
Lindgren, H. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2435693 · Cited by 83
“As described by Pradhan et al. (2019), the shift can be due to a shift of activity purpose between satisfying emotional needs through a digital companion, and non-companion purposes.”
InfluentialXygkou, A., Ang, C. S., Siriaraya, P., Kopecki, J. P., Covaci, A., Kanjo, E., & She, W. J. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642538 · Cited by 73
“Interestingly, studies in this domain have also highlighted how the perception of voice assistants as being either human-like or object-like tends to be dynamic and is often infuenced by factors such as the interaction style and the user’s desire for social companionship [44].”
BackgroundStudying Exploration & Long-Term Use of Voice Assistants by Older Adults
Upadhyay, P., Heung, S., Azenkot, S., & Brewer, R. N. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580925 · Cited by 51
“However, these interactions could be susceptible to a novelty effect, which may wear off over time, as suggested by [23].”
BackgroundInfluentialMarziali, R. A., Franceschetti, C., Dinculescu, A. C., Nistorescu, A. I., Kristály, D. M., Moșoi, A. A., Broekx, R., Marin, M., Vizitiu, C., Moraru, S.-A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/50534 · Cited by 58
“All the articles detail the total number of people engaged, except for 31% (5/16) of the articles [26,31,32,34,35].”
InfluentialMao, W., Sun, W. M., Wang, M., & Qiu, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3432195 · Cited by 47
Hey Google, Do You Have a Personality? Designing Personality and Personas for Conversational Agents
Pradhan, A., & Lazar, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3469595.3469607 · Cited by 50
“, ascribe human-like properties, characteristics, or mental states to nonhuman agents [8]) and perceive them as human-like to even associate social roles of friend or a partner with the agent [19, 22, 23].”
BackgroundSelf-citationPutting humans back in the loop: An affordance conceptualization of the 4th industrial revolution
Melville, N. P., Robert, L., & Xiao, X. (2022) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12422 · Cited by 51
“For example, human-like machine voices d that are prespecified by agents p may be perceived more as trusted friend or collaborator than tablet or sound speaker in repeated enactments with repeated impacts e (Pradhan et al. 2019).”
BackgroundFesterling, J., & Siraj, I. (2020) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000508499 · Cited by 48
“Although Pradhan et al. (2019) provide a consistent conclusion of their discussion in favour of anthropomorphism, it should be emphasised that the theoretical claim of NOCH differs systematically from the argument of anthropomorphism: as pointed out earlier, the attribution of humanoid qualities to…”
BackgroundShao, C., & Kwon, K. H. (2021) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.293 · Cited by 49
The Impact of Everyday AI-Based Smart Speaker Use on the Well-Being of Older Adults Living Alone
Park, S., & Kim, B. (2022) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102133 · Cited by 46
Liu, N., Pu, Q., Shi, Y., Zhang, S., & Qiu, L. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2074667 · Cited by 46
“IVAs have demonstrated the capability to provide customized services, assistance, and support for older adults (Pradhan et al., 2019; Thakur & Han, 2019; Trajkova & Martin-Hammond, 2020).”
BackgroundGao, Y., Jin, Y., Chauhan, J., Choi, S., Li, J., & Jin, Z. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3448113 · Cited by 45
Mathur, N., Dhodapkar, K., Zubatiy, T., Li, J., Jones, B., & Mynatt, E. (2022) · Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3517428.3544830 · Cited by 45
Brewer, R. N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/3491101.3519642 · Cited by 43
“and help to provide companionship or connect with others [55, 67].”
BackgroundA Scoping Review of HRI Research on ‘Anthropomorphism’: Contributions to the Method Debate in HRI
Damholdt, M. F., Quick, O. S., Seibt, J., Vestergaard, C., & Hansen, M. (2023) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01014-z · Cited by 46
“[52] 2015 USA Qualitative lab study 20 20.”
BackgroundEnam, M. A., Murmu, C., & Dixon, E. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2476710 · Cited by 62
“…participants’ conceptualization of LLM-based chatbots as a “potential friends” or “entities without a personality,” using similar language to the “object-like” versus “human-like” language used by older adults’ to describe categorization of smart-speakers in prior work (Pradhan et al., 2019).”
InfluentialMetaphors in Voice User Interfaces: A Slippery Fish
Desai, S., & Twidale, M. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3609326 · Cited by 42
Designing Conversational AI for Aging: A Systematic Review of Older Adults' Perceptions and Needs
Yuan-hui, H., Zhou, Q., & Piper, A. M. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713578 · Cited by 62
Cambre, J., Reig, S., Kravitz, Q., & Kulkarni, C. (2020) · Conference on Designing Interactive Systems · doi:10.1145/3357236.3395479 · Cited by 30
“Further still, different populations raise different design needs and usability challenges, such as older adults [42], children [5,29] and settings where multiple people interact simultaneously with an assistant [41].”
BackgroundFirefox Voice: An Open and Extensible Voice Assistant Built Upon the Web
Cambre, J., Williams, A. C., Razi, A., Bicking, I., Wallin, A., Tsai, J., Kulkarni, C., & Kaye, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445409 · Cited by 39
“On the one hand, this tendency to anthropomorphize can have positive effects, such as by leading to a sense of attachment or companionship with the assistant [56, 59].”
BackgroundKoban, K., & Banks, J. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.108098 · Cited by 38
Chung, J., Bleich, M., Wheeler, D. C., Winship, J. M., McDowell, B., Baker, D., & Parsons, P. (2021) · Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine · doi:10.1177/23337214211005869 · Cited by 35
“For example, older adults who are socially isolated may see virtual assistants as a social companion and interact with the assistant to feel their desire for social connectedness (Pradhan et al., 2019).”
Desai, S., & Chin, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581507 · Cited by 38
Embracing Companion Technologies
Niess, J., & Woźniak, P. W. (2020) · Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3419249.3420134 · Cited by 40
“The inquiry into the ontology of everyday artefacts was also addressed by more recent work in HCI [37].”
Automation, wellbeing and Digital Voice Assistants: Older people and Google devices
Duque, M., Pink, S., Strengers, Y., Martin, R., & Nicholls, L. (2021) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565211038537 · Cited by 39
“These dynamics were moreover gendered with personal pronouns and polite manners (Pradhan et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialA Systematic Review of Ethical Concerns with Voice Assistants
Seymour, W., Zhan, X., Coté, M., & Such, J. M. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604679 · Cited by 41
Do, H. J., Kong, H., Lee, J., & Bailey, B. P. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555112 · Cited by 41
Wienrich, C., Carolus, A., Markus, A., Augustin, Y., Pfister, J., & Andreas Hotho, A. (2023) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers12040077 · Cited by 31
“The primary category captured the extent to which users personify the IVA [69].”
BackgroundTechnology-Mediated Enrichment in Aged Care: Survey and Interview Study
Waycott, J., Zhao, W., Kelly, R. M., & Robertson, E. (2022) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/31162 · Cited by 33
“This is in contrast to some of the recent research on the use of voice assistants and robot devices that suggests they can provide a sense of companionship [40].”
Adaimi, R., Yong, H., & Thomaz, E. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3448090 · Cited by 29
“Other researchers have studied the use of voice assistants by focusing on particular sub-populations, such as multi-user households [33], children and parents [12, 15], people with disabilities [36], older adults [35], and under-served users in low-income regions [38].”
BackgroundDifferences in Interactions with a Conversational Agent
Oh, Y. H., Chung, K., & Ju, D. Y. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17093189 · Cited by 30
“These studies indicate that CAs are perceived not only as typical electronic machines but also as companions [13,20,29,30].”
BackgroundInfluentialChin, J., Desai, S., Lin, S. (.-H., & Mejia, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637365 · Cited by 27
“[55] found that users do not have a fixed mental model to describe VAs.”
BackgroundChen, C., Lifset, E. T., Han, Y., Roy, A., Hogarth, M., Moore, A. A., Farcas, E., & Weibel, N. (2023) · The 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3597638.3608378 · Cited by 25
“, [57, 72]) only focused on general uses (e.”
BackgroundDesai, S., Lundy, M., & Chin, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3571884.3597141 · Cited by 25
User-centered AI-based voice-assistants for safe mobility of older people in urban context
Anthony, B. (2024) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-01865-8 · Cited by 25
“In addition, evidence from Pradhan et al. (2019) stated that not all users desire a female voice trait for their voice-assistants.”
InfluentialKoushik, V., & Kane, S. K. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102862 · Cited by 24
CareJournal: A Voice-Based Conversational Agent for Supporting Care Communications
Rudnik, J., Raghuraj, S., Li, M., & Brewer, R. N. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642163 · Cited by 30
“We used prototype evaluation interviews to gain contextual insight into care partners’ communication practices [50, 51], their interaction with conversational agents [109], and their reactions to computer-mediated care communication [64].”
Yan, C., Johnson, K., & Jones, V. K. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph21010100 · Cited by 29
“Our sample size ( n = 15) and study duration are consistent with previous studies on voice-activated virtual home assistants among adults 65 or older (average sample size = 16, sample size range: 7–19; study duration range: 3 weeks–12 months) [27,29,40,41].”
ResultSmall Group Interactions with Voice-User Interfaces
Ostrowski, A. K., Zygouras, V., Park, H. W., & Breazeal, C. (2021) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1145/3434073.3444655 · Cited by 28
“will expand the limited capability of the functionalities VUIs can provide today and make them become supportive partners, motivating allies, and collaborative companions [34, 58, 65, 69, 83].”
BackgroundCOVID-19 and the secret virtual assistants: the social weapons for a state of emergency
Sheerman, L., Marston, H. R., Musselwhite, C., & Morgan, D. (2020) · Emerald Open Research · doi:10.35241/emeraldopenres.13571.1 · Cited by 27
“Indeed, VAs provide users with a sense of presence and older adults are reporting the adoption of VAs as a personal friend (Pradhan et al., 2019).”
BackgroundVoice Controlled Devices and Older Adults – A Systematic Literature Review
Jakob, D. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-05581-2_14 · Cited by 26
Soubutts, E., Ayobi, A., Eardley, R., McNaney, R., Cater, K., & O'Kane, A. A. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555193 · Cited by 23
“Voice assistants (VAs) are devices which allow their users to converse, ask questions, and obtain information simply by speaking to the device [61].”
Sengupta, K., Sarcar, S., Pradhan, A., McNaney, R., Sayago, S., Chattopadhyay, D., & Joshi, A. (2020) · Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3334480.3381057 · Cited by 23
Self-citationExamining Humanness as a Metaphor to Design Voice User Interfaces
Desai, S., Dubiel, M., & Leiva, L. A. (2024) · ACM Conversational User Interfaces 2024 · doi:10.1145/3640794.3665535 · Cited by 21
“Moreover, users fluctuated between human and non-human metaphors seamlessly without cognitive dissonance.”
BackgroundGÜLTEKİN, M., & ŞAHİN, M. (2024) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2024-1-6 · Cited by 23
Kuoppamäki, S., Jaberibraheem, R., Hellstrand, M., & McMillan, D. (2023) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01055-4 · Cited by 23
“We aimed to understand issues influencing the acceptability of conversational agents for our participants in order to develop an interaction paradigm that could be perceived as purposeful among this age group [5, 6, 16–18].”
BackgroundStrengers, Y., Duque, M., Mortimer, M., Pink, S., Martin, R., Nicholls, L., Horan, B., Eugene, A., & Thomson, S. (2022) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3532106.3533502 · Cited by 23
“Some studies have highlighted how older people relate to and anthropomorphize voice assistants, which can provide companionship for older adults [59], as we have discussed elsewhere [14].”
BackgroundFridolin: participatory design and evaluation of a nutrition chatbot for older adults
Weber, P. P., Mahmood, F., Ahmadi, M., von Jan, V., Ludwig, T. G., & Wieching, R. (2023) · i-com · doi:10.1515/icom-2022-0042 · Cited by 21
Is Alexa like a computer? A search engine? A friend? A silly child? Yes.
Desai, S., & Twidale, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3543829.3544535 · Cited by 20
Arakawa, R., Lehman, J. F., & Goel, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3699759 · Cited by 22
Age-Related Differences in Preferences for Using Voice Assistants
Gollasch, D., & Weber, G. (2021) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3473856.3473889 · Cited by 20
“(15) Integrate security questions as checks to prevent accidental irreversibly actions – [33] age 60+ (16) Make suggestions proactively – [6] general usability issues of voice assistants (17) Offer help and support proactively – [26] age 65-83, mean: 71.”
Background"This machine is for the aides": Tailoring Voice Assistant Design to Home Health Care Work
Bartle, V., Albright, L., & Dell, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581118 · Cited by 18
“IVAs have also shown potential for inhome health applications [55, 61, 80, 83], including self-managing health conditions [22], supporting independent living [21], and providing emotional support[24, 49, 52].”
BackgroundManiar, N., Chan, S., Zulfikar, W. D., Ren, S., Xu, C., & Maes, P. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3708359.3712151 · Cited by 23
Speaking with My Screen Reader: Using Audio Fictions to Explore Conversational Access to Interfaces
Phutane, M., Jung, C., Chen, N., & Azenkot, S. (2023) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3597638.3608404 · Cited by 18
“[102] Researchers investigated metaphorical perceptions of CAs and investigated whether users viewed them as mere “object-like” tools, or “human-like” friends [81, 83, 103].”
BackgroundInfluentialDigital ethnography of home use of digital personal assistants
Paay, J., Kjeldskov, J., Hansen, K. M., Jørgensen, T. B., & Overgaard, K. L. (2020) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2020.1834620 · Cited by 19
“…Findlater 2018) and older adults (Pradhan, Findla-ter, and Lazar 2019), personi fi cation of digital personal assistants (Lopatovska and Williams 2018; Pradhan, Findlater, and Lazar 2019; Purington et al. 2017), racial and socioeconomic impacts on DPA use (Garg and Sen-gupta 2019), privacy issues…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSin, J., Chen, D., Threatt, J. G., Gorham, A., & Munteanu, C. (2022) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3543829.3543841 · Cited by 19
“However, conversational VUIs may better match older adults’ needs and expectations, as has suggested in existing literature [19].”
BackgroundCybersex with human- and machine-cued partners: Gratifications, shortcomings, and tensions.
Banks, J., & Ouytsel, J. V. (2020) · Technology Mind and Behavior · doi:10.1037/tmb0000008 · Cited by 17
“…cueing is multimodal, comprising visual (e.g., expressions and gazes; cf. Chesher & Andreallo, 2020), verbal (textual conveyances or vocalizations; Pradhan et al., 2019), and behavioral (e.g., social context awareness cues; Fraune et al., 2020) properties that denote a “living/nonliving,”…”
BackgroundLiu, C., Su, M., Xiang, Y., Huang, Y., Yang, Y., Kang Zhang, A., & Fan, M. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714228 · Cited by 27
“In this context, voice agents utilize artificial intelligence to offer an intuitive and accessible conversational way for older adults to interact with technology, providing assistance and companionship [42, 66, 77, 99].”
Voice Assistants for Mental Health Services: Designing Dialogues with Homebound Older Adults
Wong, N., Jeong, S., Reddy, M. C., Stamatis, C. A., Lattie, E. G., & Jacobs, M. L. (2024) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3643834.3661536 · Cited by 22
Phinnemore, R., Reza, M., Lewis, B., Mahadevan, K., Wang, B. K., Annett, M., & Wigdor, D. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581346 · Cited by 18
“As voice assistants can be designed with anthropomorphic characteristics such as genders and personas [2, 54] and given that voice assistants play human-like behavioural roles (i.”
BackgroundAnthony, B. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2344145 · Cited by 19
ShamAIn: Designing Superior Conversational AI Inspired by Shamanism
Cho, H., Seo, J. A., Lee, J., Kim, C.-M., & Nam, T.-J. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714297 · Cited by 21
“For instance, CAI has proven efective as a caregiver for older adults [77, 106], a tour guide [17], a mental health counselor [53, 104], an educational mentor [71, 94], a friend [10], and even a romantic partner [4].”
Zhang, R., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N. J., Knijnenburg, B. P., & Freeman, G. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3686976 · Cited by 22
Minder, B., Wolf, P., Baldauf, M., & Verma, S. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01615-z · Cited by 18
“Two papers from both CS and SS contributed to the theory of anthropomorphism in the VA context (Lopatovska and Oropeza, 2018; Pradhan et al., 2019).”
BackgroundRingfort-Felner, R., Laschke, M., Neuhaus, R., Theofanou-Fülbier, D., & Hassenzahl, M. (2022) · Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3546155.3546699 · Cited by 15
“Recent work has already begun to broaden the roles IPAs can take in such a relationship, for example, as a friend [52, 59, 67], companion [43, 57], coach [71], or tutor [27], depending on the specific requirements of different situations, such as commuting to work.”
BackgroundInfluentialSchuß, M., Rollwagen, A., & Riener, A. (2022) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti6120109 · Cited by 17
Garg, R., Cui, H., & Kapadia, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479495 · Cited by 15
“, [3, 9, 31, 50, 65, 67, 79]) have assessed the use of smart speakers by various groups of users (e.”
BackgroundChang, F., Sheng, L., & Gu, Z. (2024) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/47472 · Cited by 14
“Other studies have assessed the feasibility and usability of smart speakers for promoting active aging [19,20], investigated older adults’first impressions of smart speakers [19,21], and identified influential factors regarding older adults’attitudes toward smart speakers [22].”
BackgroundThe Use of Smart Home Speakers by the Elderly: Exploratory Analyses and Potential for Big Data
Purao, S., Hao, H., & Meng, C. (2021) · Big Data Research · doi:10.1016/j.bdr.2021.100224 · Cited by 15
Zaga, C., & Lupetti, M. L. (2022) · University of Twente Research Information · doi:10.3990/1.9789036553599 · Cited by 16
Using Voice-Activated Technologies to Enhance Well-Being of Older Adults in Long-Term Care Homes
Grigorovich, A., Marcotte, A.-A., Colobong, R., Szabo, M., MacNeill, C., Blais, D., Giffin, G., Clahane, K., Goldman, I. P., Harris, B., et al. (2024) · Innovation in Aging · doi:10.1093/geroni/igae102 · Cited by 13
“Recent research on voice-activated ICTs suggests that these may be even more beneficial for older adults with disabilities or complex health issues given their accessibility features, relatively simple user interface, and built-in virtual assistant (Nimrod & Ivan, 2022; Pradhan et al., 2019).”
Ethical aspects of voice assistants: a critical discourse analysis of Indonesian media texts
Arifin, A. A., & Lennerfors, T. T. (2021) · Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/jices-12-2020-0118 · Cited by 13
A Taxonomy of Embodiment in the AI Era
Hellström, T., Kaiser, N., & Bensch, S. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13224441 · Cited by 14
Desai, S., Hu, X., Lundy, M., & Chin, J. (2023) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction · doi:10.1145/3623809.3623827 · Cited by 13
Habscheid, S., Hector, T., Hrncal, C., & Waldecker, D. (2021) · Journal für Medienlinguistik · doi:10.21248/jfml.2021.44 · Cited by 13
“Die Aufzeichnungen erwiesen sich auch bei einer Untersuchung zur Personifizierung und ontologischen Kategorisierung von IPA-Dialogen als nützlich, wurden aber auch hier zusätzlich zu Interviews herangezogen (vgl. Pradhan et al. 2019).”
BackgroundExperience of the Use of AI Conversational Agents Among Low-Income Older Adults Living Alone
Kim, K. M., & Kim, S. H. (2024) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440241301022 · Cited by 13
“Personification involves treating conversational agents as if they were human (Pradhan et al., 2019).”
InfluentialJang, Y.-B. (2020) · Archives of Design Research · doi:10.15187/adr.2020.08.33.3.127 · Cited by 15
“As noted in Pradhan et al. (2019), “personification” and “anthropomorphism” are interchangeably used from time to time.”
BackgroundLong-Term Interaction with Relational SIAs
Kory-Westlund, J. M., Park, H. W., Grover, I., & Breazeal, C. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3563659.3563667 · Cited by 12
Ahire, S., Rohs, M., & Simon, B. (2022) · Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (CHIWORK) · doi:10.1145/3533406.3533420 · Cited by 11
Framing Effects on Judgments of Social Robots’ (Im)Moral Behaviors
Banks, J., & Koban, K. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.627233 · Cited by 14
“…context and self-relevance may drive more speci fi c frames, as when eldercare professionals frame robots as threats to their roles (Frennert et al., 2021), while older adults themselves tend to hold relative-humanness frames for AI, emphasizing companionship potentials (Pradhan et al., 2019).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Pradhan, A., Findlater, L., & Lazar, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Published
- 2019-11-07
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- CSCW
- Pages
- 1-21
- ISSN
- 2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3084929246
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 28.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Mozilla Foundation
- National Science Foundation (#1816145)
- 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 › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- voice assistants, anthropomorphism, older adults, social companionship, loneliness, human-AI interaction
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
