CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Innovative Human-Technology InteractionSocial Robot Interaction and HRIMedia and Digital Communication

Can Fans Build Parasocial Relationships through Idols' Simulated Voice Messages?: A Study of AI Private Call Users' Perceptions, Cognitions, and Behaviors

Open access
Kang, Eun Jeong, Kim, Haesoo, Kim, Hyunwoo, Fussell, Susan R., Kim, Juho·2025·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3711111
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Celebrities have used their imitated voices in media content for various purposes to entertain audiences. However, it is unclear how their fans perceive media content using synthetic celebrity voices. Fans are dedicated to celebrities and actively communicate with them on social media, sometimes resulting in the establishment of parasocial relationships. Focusing on simulated voice messages that mimic celebrities' communication behaviors, we explored how fans form parasocial relationships through synthetic media content. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 fans who used AI Private Call, an AI-based voice message service that employed K-Pop idols' synthetic voices. Findings show that the nature of synthetic voices could not provide impressive experiences related to their idols. However, participants believe that simulated voice messages can help make up for the limited opportunities to interact directly with idols. Based on the theoretical framework of parasocial relationship development, participants engaged with simulated voice messages, exhibiting various cognitive and behavioral actions that dynamically advanced the relationship. These behaviors include aligning voice content with idols' vocal characteristics, adhering to social norms in interactions, and confirming idols' involvement in content creation to demonstrate a sense of authenticity. Additionally, their communities associated with fandoms affect their experiences throughout the process. Based on the findings, we discuss how simulated voices might impact the relationship between fans and celebrities, highlighting the responsibility of communities and platforms. We also propose design guidelines for creating simulated celebrity voice content that fans can entertain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3711111

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Users often experience synthetic companions as emotionally real, even when cognitively aware of their artificiality.

    “users often experience synthetic companions as emotionally real, even when cognitively aware of their artificiality”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Kang et al. 2025

    Section 5.1.1 reports that nearly all participants knew the idol voices were artificially created, and Section 5.1 says engaging, tailored messages could create an ‘illusion of intimacy.’ But the study concerns simulated messages from idols, not synthetic companions generally; it describes intimacy as conditional rather than something users often experienced, and reports that participants frequently found the voices inauthentic. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Anthropomorphic AI agents can degrade relational boundaries, distort consent norms, and foster affective dependency.

    “Recent work in HCI and AI ethics warns that anthropomorphic AI agents can degrade relational boundaries, distort consent norms, and foster affective dependency”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Kang et al. 2025

    Section 5.2.4 reports fans’ concerns that simulated celebrity voices could violate idols’ personal rights and convey messages the idols had not agreed to say; Section 6.5.3 also discusses risks to idols’ personal boundaries. Section 6.1 says the voices can evoke parasocial connections, but the paper does not establish affective dependency or a distortion of consent norms, and its findings concern simulated celebrity voices rather than anthropomorphic AI agents generally. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. Alyse Marie Allred and Colin M Gray. 2021. " Be Gay, Do Crimes": The Co-Production and Activist Potential of Contemporary Fanzines. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1-35.
  2. Matthew P Aylett, Benjamin R Cowan, and Leigh Clark. 2019. Siri, echo and performance: You have to suffer darling. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-10.
  3. Murray R Barrick, Gregory K Patton, and Shanna N Haugland. 2000. Accuracy of interviewer judgments of job applicant personality traits. Personnel Psychology 53, 4 (2000), 925-951.
  4. Kristen Barta and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Constructing authenticity on TikTok: Social norms and social support on the" Fun" Platform. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1-29.
  5. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77.
  6. Nancy H Brinson, Laura L Lemon, Coral Bender, and Annika Fetzer Graham. 2023. Consumer response to podcast advertising: the interactive role of persuasion knowledge and parasocial relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing 40, 7 (2023), 971-982.
  7. Julia Cambre, Jessica Colnago, Jim Maddock, Janice Tsai, and Jofish Kaye. 2020. Choice of voices: A large-scale evaluation of text-to-speech voice quality for long-form content. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-13.
  8. Sam WT Chan, Tamil Selvan Gunasekaran, Yun Suen Pai, Haimo Zhang, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2021. KinVoices: Using voices of friends and family in voice interfaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1-25.
  9. Ruijia Cheng and Jenna Frens. 2022. Feedback exchange and online affinity: A case study of online fanfiction writers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1-29.
  10. Chau-kiu Cheung and Xiao Dong Yue. 2012. Idol worship as compensation for parental absence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 17, 1 (2012), 35-46.
  11. Abhinav Choudhry, Jinda Han, Xiaoyu Xu, and Yun Huang. 2022. " I Felt a Little Crazy Following a'Doll'" Investigating Real Influence of Virtual Influencers on Their Followers. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 6, GROUP (2022), 1-28.
  12. Siyoung Chung and Hichang Cho. 2017. Fostering parasocial relationships with celebrities on social media: Implica- tions for celebrity endorsement. Psychology & Marketing 34, 4 (2017), 481-495.
  13. Cinzia Colapinto and Eleonora Benecchi. 2014. The presentation of celebrity personas in everyday twittering: Managing online reputations throughout a communication crisis. Media, Culture & Society 36, 2 (2014), 219-233.
  14. Robert Dale. 2022. The voice synthesis business: 2022 update. Natural language engineering 28, 3 (2022), 401-408.
  15. Tiffany D Do, Ryan P McMahan, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2022. A new uncanny valley? The effects of speech fidelity and human listener gender on social perceptions of a virtual-human speaker. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1-11.
  16. Siobhan Doyle. 2021. License your voice. Engineering & Technology 16, 8 (2021), 79-84.
  17. Brianna Dym, Cecilia Aragon, Julia Bullard, Ruby Davis, and Casey Fiesler. 2018. Online fandom: Boldly going where few CSCW researchers have gone before. In Companion of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 121-124.
  18. Sam Ford. 2014. Fan studies: Grappling with an 'Undisciplined'discipline. Journal of Fandom Studies 2, 1 (2014), 53-71.
  19. Kathleen M Galotti. 2017. Cognitive psychology in and out of the laboratory. Sage Publications.
  20. David C Giles. 2002. Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media psychology 4, 3 (2002), 279-305.
  21. Leo A Goodman. 1961. Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics (1961), 148-170.
  22. Juhye Ha, Hyeon Jeon, Daeun Han, Jinwook Seo, and Changhoon Oh. 2024. CloChat: Understanding How People Customize, Interact, and Experience Personas in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-24.
  23. Daniel Halpern and Jennifer Gibbs. 2013. Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in human behavior 29, 3 (2013), 1159-1168.
  24. Emma Holmes, Ysabel Domingo, and Ingrid S Johnsrude. 2018. Familiar voices are more intelligible, even if they are not recognized as familiar. Psychological science 29, 10 (2018), 1575-1583.
  25. Wiebke Hutiri, Orestis Papakyriakopoulos, and Alice Xiang. 2024. Not My Voice! A Taxonomy of Ethical and Safety Harms of Speech Generators. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Rio de Janeiro Brazil, 2024-06-03). ACM, 359-376. doi:10.1145/3630106.3658911 · DOI
  26. Henry Jenkins. 2012. Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. Routledge.
  27. Jihyun Kim and Hayeon Song. 2016. Celebrity's self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial relationships: A mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016), 570-577.
  28. Jieun Kim and Hayeon Song. 2024. My Voice as a Daily Reminder: Self-Voice Alarm for Daily Goal Achievement. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-16.
  29. Rebecca Chiyoko King-O'Riain. 2021. "They were having so much fun, so genuinely... ": K-pop fan online affect and corroborated authenticity. New media & society 23, 9 (2021), 2820-2838.
  30. Christoph Klimmt, Tilo Hartmann, and Holger Schramm. 2013. Parasocial interactions and relationships. In Psychology of entertainment. Routledge, 291-313.
  31. Eun-Ju Lee. 2020. Authenticity model of (mass-oriented) computer-mediated communication: Conceptual explorations and testable propositions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 1 (2020), 60-73.
  32. Jin Ha Lee, Nicole Santero, Arpita Bhattacharya, Emma May, and Emma S Spiro. 2022. Community-based strategies for combating misinformation: Learning from a popular culture fandom. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2022).
  33. Kwan Min Lee and Clifford Nass. 2003. Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 289-296.
  34. Rachel Esther Lim and So Young Lee. 2023. "You are a virtual influencer!": Understanding the impact of origin disclosure and emotional narratives on parasocial relationships and virtual influencer credibility. Computers in Human Behavior 148 (2023), 107897.
  35. Zihao Liu, Yan Zhang, and Chenglin Miao. 2023. Protecting Your Voice from Speech Synthesis Attacks. In Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (Austin TX USA, 2023-12-04). ACM, 394-408. doi:10.1145/3627106.3627183 · DOI
  36. Zihao Liu, Yan Zhang, and Chenglin Miao. 2023. Protecting Your Voice from Speech Synthesis Attacks. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 394-408.
  37. Zhicong Lu, Chenxinran Shen, Jiannan Li, Hong Shen, and Daniel Wigdor. 2021. More kawaii than a real-person live streamer: understanding how the otaku community engages with and perceives virtual YouTubers. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-14.
  38. Marlyna Maros, ABDUL BASEK, and FARA NADIA. 2022. Building Online Social Identity and Fandom Activities of K-pop Fans on Twitter. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature 28, 3 (2022).
  39. Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2011. To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence 17, 2 (2011), 139-158.
  40. Sarah McRae. 2017. Get off my internets: How anti-fans deconstruct lifestyle bloggers' authenticity work. Persona Studies 3, 1 (2017), 13-27.
  41. Edvinas Meskys, Julija Kalpokiene, Paul Jurcys, and Aidas Liaudanskas. 2020. Regulating deep fakes: legal and ethical considerations. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 15, 1 (2020), 24-31.
  42. Margaret Moe. 2023. Podvertising II: "Just like My Best Friend" -Relationships in Host-read Podcast Advertisements. 30, 1 (2023), 362-386. doi:10.1080/19376529.2021.1960840 · DOI
  43. Azadeh Naderi and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2023. User engagement behaviors: Exploring predictors of ARMY's active and passive media usage behaviors using social cognitive theory. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-7.
  44. Paarth Neekhara, Shehzeen Hussain, Shlomo Dubnov, Farinaz Koushanfar, and Julian McAuley. 2021. Expressive neural voice cloning. In Asian Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 252-267.
  45. Shuo Niu, Hugh S Manon, Ava Bartolome, Nguyen Binh Ha, and Keegan Veazey. 2022. Close-up and whispering: An understanding of multimodal and parasocial interactions in YouTube ASMR videos. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-18.
  46. Nurhafihz Noor, Sally Rao Hill, and Indrit Troshani. 2022. Artificial intelligence service agents: role of parasocial relationship. Journal of Computer Information Systems 62, 5 (2022), 1009-1023.
  47. Camille Noufi, Lloyd May, and Jonathan Berger. 2023. The Role of Vocal Persona in Natural and Synthesized Speech. In 2023 IEEE 17th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG). IEEE, 1-4.
  48. Garrett J O'Keefe and Barbara K Sulanowski. 1995. More than just talk: Uses, gratifications, and the telephone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72, 4 (1995), 922-933.
  49. Patrick B O'Sullivan and Caleb T Carr. 2018. Masspersonal communication: A model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New media & society 20, 3 (2018), 1161-1180.
  50. Loretta L Pecchioni and Kelby K Halone. 2000. Relational listening II: Form & variation across social and personal relationships. International Journal of Listening 14, 1 (2000), 69-93.
  51. Natalie Pennington, Jeffrey A Hall, and Alex Hutchinson. 2016. To tweet or not to tweet: Explaining fan-celebrity interaction on Twitter. Interaction 48, 1 (2016).
  52. Greig Powers, James P Johnson, and Ginger Killian. 2023. To Tell or Not to Tell: The Effects of Disclosing Deepfake Video on US and Indian Consumers' Purchase Intention. Journal of Interactive Advertising (2023), 1-17.
  53. Alice Preminger and Matthew B Kugler. 2023. The Right of Publicity Can Save Actors from Deepfake Armageddon. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Forthcoming, Northwestern Public Law Research Paper 23-52 (2023).
  54. Eric E Rasmussen and David R Ewoldsen. 2016. Treatment via television: The relation between watching Dr. Phil and viewers' intentions to seek mental health treatment. Journal of health communication 21, 6 (2016), 611-619.
  55. Tobias Raun. 2018. Capitalizing intimacy: New subcultural forms of micro-celebrity strategies and affective labour on YouTube. Convergence 24, 1 (2018), 99-113.
  56. Kathryn E Ringland, Arpita Bhattacharya, Kevin Weatherwax, Tessa Eagle, and Christine T Wolf. 2022. ARMY's magic shop: Understanding the collaborative construction of playful places in online communities. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1-19.
  57. Daniela Schlütz and Imke Hedder. 2022. Aural parasocial relations: Host-listener relationships in podcasts. Journal of Radio & Audio Media 29, 2 (2022), 457-474.
  58. Jesse Weaver Shipley. 2015. Selfie love: Public lives in an era of celebrity pleasure, violence, and social media. American Anthropologist 117, 2 (2015), 403-413.
  59. Naomi Smith and Anne-Marie Snider. 2019. ASMR, affect and digitally-mediated intimacy. Emotion, Space and Society 30 (2019), 41-48.
  60. Ho-Min Sohn. 2001. The korean language. Cambridge University Press.
  61. Helen Spencer-Oatey and Peter Franklin. 2012. What is culture. A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts 1 (2012), 22.
  62. Steven E Stern, John W Mullennix, and Ilya Yaroslavsky. 2006. Persuasion and social perception of human vs. synthetic voice across person as source and computer as source conditions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 1 (2006), 43-52.
  63. Meicheng Sun. 2020. K-pop fan labor and an alternative creative industry: A case study of GOT7 Chinese fans. Global Media and China 5, 4 (2020), 389-406.
  64. Nurit Tal-Or and Yael Papirman. 2007. The fundamental attribution error in attributing fictional figures' characteristics to the actors. Media psychology 9, 2 (2007), 331-345.
  65. Riva Tukachinsky and Gayle Stever. 2019. Theorizing development of parasocial engagement. Communication Theory 29, 3 (2019), 297-318.
  66. Mary-Caitlyn Valentinsson. 2018. Stance and the construction of authentic celebrity persona. Language in society 47, 5 (2018), 715-740.
  67. Andrea J Vickery and Sabrina Ventrano. 2021. Listening goals and parasocial relationships: How listening styles impact the development of parasocial relationships with media personas. International Journal of Listening 35, 3 (2021), 149-165.
  68. Cynthia Vinney and Lisa A Vinney. 2017. That sounds familiar: The relationship between listeners' recognition of celebrity voices, perceptions of vocal pleasantness, and engagement with media. Journal of Radio & Audio Media 24, 2 (2017), 320-338.
  69. Soyoung Wang and Seongcheol Kim. 2022. Users' emotional and behavioral responses to deepfake videos of K-pop idols. Computers in Human Behavior 134 (2022), 107305.
  70. Daniel J Weigel and Deborah S Ballard-Reisch. 2002. Investigating the behavioral indicators of relational commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 19, 3 (2002), 403-423.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kang, E. J., Kim, H., Kim, H., Fussell, S. R., & Kim, J.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2025-05-02
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
1-31
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1145/3711111
OpenAlex
W4410513031
Cited by
9
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3
FWCI
7.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (RS-2024-00406715)
  • Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (RS-2024-00443251)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
parasocial relationships, synthetic speech, celebrity fans, K-pop idols, voice characteristics, authenticity, social norms, synthetic media, design guidelines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review