The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How “Real” Are Computer Personalities?: Psychological Responses to Personality Types in Human-Computer Interaction
Abstract
How “real” are computer personalities? Using a psychological criterion for “reality,” 2 studies tested whether people respond to computer personalities the same way they tend to respond to human personalities. In Experiment 1, dominant and submissive subjects were randomly matched with a computer endowed with the personality characteristics associated with dominance or submissiveness (N = 48). Consistent with similarity-attraction theory in interpersonal interaction, subjects were more attracted to the similar computer compared to the dissimilar computer. Experiment 2 (N = 88) used the same experimental design to assess users' psychological responses to changes in personality-based behavior in computers. Consistent with gain-loss theory in interpersonal interaction, changes in the direction of similarity had a more positive effect on attraction than a consistently similar personality. Loss effects were not obtained. The findings suggest that computer personalities are psychologically real to users.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In HCI contexts, when presented with a technology possessing cues that are normally associated with human behavior (e.g., language, turn-taking, interactivity), individuals respond by exhibiting social behavior and making anthropomorphic attributions (Epley et al. 2007; Moon and Nass 1996; Nass et al. 1995).”
From AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance (2021) · cites this paper as Moon and Nass 1996
Citations
Cites
The measurement of psychological androgyny
Bem, S. L. (1974) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0036215 · Cited by 8,522
Searle, J. R. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005756 · Cited by 6,954
An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x · Cited by 6,835
Personality Structure: Emergence Of The 5-Factor Model
Digman, J. M. (1990) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221 · Cited by 6,731
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3702 · Cited by 4,872
Handbook of Personality : Theory and Research
Pervin, L. A. (1992) · Cited by 4,543
Norman, W. T. (1963) · Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0040291 · Cited by 2,619
Handbook of Personality Theory and Research.
Schwartz, M. L., Borgatta, E. F., & Lambert, W. W. (1970) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2093310 · Cited by 2,182
A psychological taxonomy of trait‐descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain
Wiggins, J. S. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395 · Cited by 1,596
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality
(1965) · Nature · doi:10.1038/2061296c0 · Cited by 1,426
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Bruch, M. A., 1980, American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 2, 71
- Byrne, D., 1965, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 240
- Fogg, B. J., International Communication Association meeting
- Lafferty, J. C., The desert survival problem
- Nass, C. I., International Communication Association meeting
- Nass, C. I., International Communication Association meeting
- Nass, C. I., 1994, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 40, 543
- Nias, D. K., Love and attraction, 151
- Wiggins, J. D., 1983, American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 5, 169
- Wiggins, J. S., 1985, Perspectives in Personality, 1, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 292
McMillan, S. J., Hoy, M. G., Kim, J., & McMahan, C. (2008) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00420.x · Cited by 41
“However, some scholars have suggested that it is important to also distinguish human-to-human interaction that enables individuals to communicate with other individuals through tools such as ‘‘tell a friend’’ links (Liu & Shrum, 2002; Moon & Nass, 1996; Rafaeli, 1988; Walther, 1996).”
BackgroundLoyalty to computer terminals: is it anthropomorphism or consistency?
Sundar, S. S. (2004) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290310001659222 · Cited by 41
“Other studies in this programme of research have demonstrated the application of social rules to computers in the domain of personality (Moon and Nass 1996), reciprocity (Fogg and Nass 1997), self-disclosure (Moon 2000), behavioural consistency (e.g., Isbister and Nass 2000), and a host of other…”
BackgroundThe Attractiveness Stereotype in the Evaluation of Embodied Conversational Agents
Khan, R., & Angeli, A. D. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03655-2_10 · Cited by 40
Design and Impact of Hesitation Gestures during Human-Robot Resource Conflicts
Moon, A., Parker, C. A. C., Croft, E. A., & der Loos, H. F. M. V. (2013) · Journal of Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.5898/jhri.2.3.moon · Cited by 40
Perceived Emotional Intelligence in Virtual Agents
Yang, Y., Ma, X., & Fung, P. (2017) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3027063.3053163 · Cited by 39
“Various studies have shown that the way humans react to virtual agents (VA) resembles how they react to real people [16, 20].”
BackgroundDo (and Say) as I Say: Linguistic Adaptation in Human–Computer Dialogs
Koulouri, T., Lauria, S., & Macredie, R. D. (2014) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.934180 · Cited by 38
Johnson, R. D., Marakas, G. M., & Palmer, J. W. (2006) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290600959104 · Cited by 36
Development and validation of a robot social presence measurement dimension scale
Chen, N., Liu, X., Zhai, Y., & Hu, X. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-28817-4 · Cited by 35
The role of expectations in human-computer interaction
Bonito, J. A., Burgoon, J. K., & Bengtsson, B. (1999) · International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP) · doi:10.1145/320297.320324 · Cited by 35
The affective outcomes of using influence tactics in embodied conversational agents
Derrick, D. C., & Ligon, G. S. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.027 · Cited by 34
Kallinen, K., & Ravaja, N. (2003) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.002 · Cited by 34
Oberlander, J., & Brew, C. (2000) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2000.0592 · Cited by 34
“The reason why personal style is an issue for NLG is that Moon & Nass (1996) have shown that a computer user prefers to work with a computer whose natural language messages have been designed to project personality parameters similar to the user’s own.”
BackgroundIntelligent autonomous agents and trust in virtual reality
Sun, N., & Botev, J. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100146 · Cited by 36
AI-Generated News Content: The Impact of AI Writer Identity and Perceived AI Human-Likeness
Lee, D. C., Jhang, J., & Baek, T. H. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2477739 · Cited by 37
“Third, we incorporate the Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) framework (Moon & Nass, 1996) to examine the moderating role of perceived AI human-likeness in determining the effect of AI writer identity and liking behaviors.”
InfluentialKaptein, M. C., Markopoulos, P., de Ruyter, B., & Aarts, E. (2010) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-010-0304-4 · Cited by 35
Lee, M., Lucas, G., Mell, J., Johnson, E., & Gratch, J. S. (2019) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA) · doi:10.1145/3308532.3329465 · Cited by 33
Lee, M., Lucas, G., & Gratch, J. S. (2021) · Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces · doi:10.1007/s12193-020-00356-6 · Cited by 32
The effects of distance in local versus remote human-computer interaction
Moon, Y. (1998) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/274644.274660 · Cited by 31
Self-citationEffects of Geographic Distribution on Dominance Perceptions in Computer-Mediated Groups
Peña, J. F., Walther, J. B., & Hancock, J. T. (2007) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650207300431 · Cited by 31
I am Robot, Your Health Adviser for Older Adults: Do You Trust My Advice?
Giorgi, I., Minutolo, A., Tirotto, F. A., Hagen, O., Esposito, M., Gianni, M., Palomino, M. A., & Masala, G. L. (2023) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01019-8 · Cited by 32
Banking with a Personalized Touch: Examining the Impact of Website Customization on Commitment
Fung, T. K. F. (2008) · Cited by 30
AI-Testimony, Conversational AIs and Our Anthropocentric Theory of Testimony
Freiman, O. (2024) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2024.2316622 · Cited by 37
“Anthropomorphic design can make machines simpler to use (Moon and Nass 1996), and therefore is a design goal of many technologies, such as companion robots.”
BackgroundArmitage, C. J., & Arden, M. A. (2016) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/hea0000376 · Cited by 31
“…[7], = .84) and perceived credibility (3 items e.g., reliable not at all [1]-very [7], = .74; Wu & Shaffer, 1987); and message utility (4 items e.g., useful not at all [1]-very [7], = .71) and message satisfaction (6 items e.g., interesting not at all [1]-very [7], = .54, Moon & Nass, 1996).”
BackgroundECA as User Interface Paradigm
Catrambone, R., Stasko, J., & Xiao, J. (2004) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/1-4020-2730-3_9 · Cited by 28
“Their efforts focus on the study of “Computers as Social Actors.” They have conducted a number of experiments that examined how people react to computer systems and applications that have certain personified characteristics ( Moon and Nass (1996) ; Nass et al. (1994); Nass et al. (1995); Nass and Lee (2000); Rickenber…”
BackgroundLee, E. (2009) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.03.003 · Cited by 28
Organizations and unusual routines a systems analysis of dysfunctional feedback processes
Rice, R. E., & Cooper, S. D. (2010) · Cited by 27
The use of abstraction and motion in the design of social interfaces
Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J., Nourbakhsh, I., & Hodgins, J. K. (2006) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/1142405.1142444 · Cited by 27
Tzeng, J. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.08.011 · Cited by 26
“This hypothesis states that people prefer to work with computers that have personalities similar to their own (Moon and Nass, 1996; Nass et al., 1995; Nass and Lee, 2001).”
BackgroundStorytelling Agents with Personality and Adaptivity
Hu, C., Walker, M. A., Neff, M., & Tree, J. E. F. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21996-7_19 · Cited by 26
Liao, T. (2017) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.03.006 · Cited by 28
Impact of two types of partner, perceived or actual, in human–human and human–agent interaction
Miwa, K., & Terai, H. (2012) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.012 · Cited by 25
Luria, M., Choi, J. O., Karp, R. G., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2020) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3357236.3395488 · Cited by 24
“Previous work has also shown that matching personality [4], personal preferences [44] and humor style [6] to the user can shape a positive agent perception.”
BackgroundJohnson, R. D., Veltri, N. F., & Hornik, S. (2008) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447310802205784 · Cited by 25
Lonely human and dominant robot: Similarity versus complementary attraction
Yu, L., & Fan, X. (2024) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21975 · Cited by 26
Snyder, E. C., Mendu, S., Sundar, S. S., & Abdullah, S. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103126 · Cited by 24
Using AI chatbots in climate change mitigation: a moderated serial mediation model
Lee, S., Park, Y., & Park, G. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2298305 · Cited by 23
“…by chatbot designers to claim humanness in chatbot agents and have been found to create various interaction outcomes, such as similarity perception, trustworthiness, attraction, and compliance (Fogg 2002; Lee and Nass 2010; Moon 2000; Moon and Nass 1996; Nass and Lee 2001; Park et al. 2023).”
Social and Spatial Presence: An Application to Optimize Human-Computer Interaction.
Horvath, K., & Lombard, M. (2010) · Cited by 24
Esteban, P. G., Bagheri, E., Elprama, S., Jewell, C. I. C., Cao, H.-L., Beir, A. D., Jacobs, A., & Vanderborght, B. (2021) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00715-z · Cited by 23
Technology socialness and Web site satisfaction
Barnes, S. J., & Vidgen, R. T. (2014) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.017 · Cited by 23
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000) · Cited by 23
Self-citationImproving evaluations of advanced robots by depicting them in harmful situations
Grundke, A., Stein, J., & Appel, M. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107565 · Cited by 22
Automated Group Facilitation for Gathering Wide Audience End-User Requirements
Derrick, D. C., Read, A., Nguyen, C., Callens, A. M., & de Vreede, G. (2013) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.109 · Cited by 22
Chérif, E., & Lemoine, J.-F. (2018) · Recherche et Applications en Marketing (French Edition) · doi:10.1177/0767370118775963 · Cited by 23
Expressing Personalities of Conversational Agents through Visual and Verbal Feedback
Lee, S.-Y., Lee, G., Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2019) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics8070794 · Cited by 22
Moon, Y. (2002) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1204_04 · Cited by 22
Self-citationClavel, C., d’Armagnac, S., Hebrard, S., Hesters, T., & Potdevin, D. (2024) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2024.2440784 · Cited by 29
“With the Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) paradigm, Moon and Nass (1996) argue that embodied conversational agents should be considered social partners in interactions.”
Affective Human–Robot Interaction
Beer, J. M., Liles, K. R., Wu, X., & Pakala, S. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801851-4.00015-x · Cited by 20
Design of Hesitation Gestures for Nonverbal Human-Robot Negotiation of Conflicts
Moon, A., Hashmi, M., der Loos, H. F. M. V., Croft, E. A., & Billard, A. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3418302 · Cited by 19
Mozafari, N., Schwede, M., Hammerschmidt, M., & Weiger, W. H. (2022) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2022.525 · Cited by 19
“This happens because with an increasingly human-like interface, users tend to perceive and treat robots as social beings [44, 47, 48].”
Farzanfar, R. (2006) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458206066663 · Cited by 19
Sheehan, B., Jin, H. S., Martin, B. A. S., & Kim, H. J. (2024) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/00936502241273259 · Cited by 22
“The logic for our model is best described in terms of the Computers’ as Social Actors Paradigm (CASA; Moon & Nass, 1996).”
Conveying chatbot personality through conversational cues in social media messages
Heppner, H., Schiffhauer, B., & Seelmeyer, U. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100044 · Cited by 28
Casey, T. W., & Poropat, A. E. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.001 · Cited by 19
Effects of multimodal cues on children's perception of uncanniness in a social robot
Paetzel, M., Peters, C., Nyström, I., & Castellano, G. (2016) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/2993148.2993157 · Cited by 18
Customizability in conversational agents and their impact on health engagement
Paul, S. C., Bartmann, N., & Clark, J. (2021) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.320 · Cited by 16
Humour, Relationship Maintenance and Personality Matching in automated dialogue: A controlled study
Boni, M. D., Richardson, A., & Hurling, R. (2007) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2007.11.002 · Cited by 17
Be Friendly, Not Friends: How LLM Sycophancy Shapes User Trust
Sun, Y., & Wang, T. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791079 · Cited by 16
Social Responses to Virtual Humans: The Effect of Human-Like Characteristics
Park, S. H., & Catrambone, R. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11167214 · Cited by 21
“(Moon & Nass, 1996) Self-serving bias; When personalities matches, individuals are more likely to give the other credit for success and less likely to blame for failure.”
BackgroundNg, Y.-L. (2022) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2022.2111273 · Cited by 16
“As a result, people respond to computer personalities similar to human personalities (Moon and Nass 1996), treat computers as teammates when they are interdependent (Nass, Fogg, and Moon 1996), and are polite to computers (Nass, Moon, and Carney 1999).”
BackgroundPreface: Towards Adaptation of Interaction to Affective Factors
de Rosis, F. (2001) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1023/a:1011868232549 · Cited by 16
Effect of Robot’s Listening Attitude Change on Self-disclosure of the Elderly
Nakamura, Y., & Umemuro, H. (2022) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-022-00934-6 · Cited by 14
Rahman, M. S., Sabbir, M. M., Zhang, J., Taufique, K. M. R., & Rahman, M. M. (2024) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.13096 · Cited by 14
Evolutionary nature of virtual experience
Lee, K. M., & Jung, Y. (2005) · Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1556/jcep.3.2005.2.4 · Cited by 14
“In both studies (ISBISTER & NASS, 2000; MOON & NASS, 1996), participants attributed personality (extroversion, introversion, submissiveness, and dominance) to computers and software agents.”
BackgroundSkowron, M., Rank, S., Świderska, A., Küster, D., & Kappas, A. (2014) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-014-9271-2 · Cited by 12
“They also react to the computers' personalities analogously to how they would typically approach humans exhibiting such qualities (Isbister & Nass, 2000; Moon & Nass, 1996).”
BackgroundJohnson, D. M., & Gardner, J. (2007) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-007-0193-9 · Cited by 13
The Effects of Web Site Structure: The Role of Personal Difference
Chung, H., & Ahn, E. (2007) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9955 · Cited by 14
The outcomes and the mediating role of the functional triad: The users' perspective
Xu, D. J., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. T. (2018) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12183 · Cited by 13
Exploring user experience and performance of a tedious task through human–agent relationship
Zhou, C., Bian, Y., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., Wang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29874-5 · Cited by 12
Designing gaze behavior for humanlike robots
Forlizzi, J., Hodgins, J. K., & Mutlu, B. (2009) · Cited by 12
Karatas, N., Yoshikawa, S., & Okada, M. (2016) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/2974804.2974811 · Cited by 12
The Role of Website Personality and Website User Engagement on Individual’s Purchase Intention
Jain, K., & Yadav, D. (2018) · Asset analytics · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7323-6_28 · Cited by 12
Grounding behaviours with conversational interfaces: effects of embodiment and failures
Kontogiorgos, D., Pereira, A., & Gustafson, J. (2021) · Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces · doi:10.1007/s12193-021-00366-y · Cited by 14
Tripathi, S. N., Husain, R., & Rana, N. P. (2025) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2025.2552202 · Cited by 11
“Humans, while interacting with humanoid robots, may experience the presence of a social entity and anthropomorphic traits like physical attributes, interactivity, and emotions evoke a human-like perception (Epley et al., 2007; Moon and Nass 1996).”
Zhu, Y., & Chu, J. (2025) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625251314337 · Cited by 11
“Studies found people attribute personality traits (Moon and Nass, 1996), speech style (Lee, 2009), gender stereotypes (Nass and Moon, 2000), and so on, to computers, and treat computers with social responses.”
Speak to me and I tell you who you are! A language-attitude study in a cultural-heritage application
Krenn, B., Schreitter, S., & Neubarth, F. (2014) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-014-0569-0 · Cited by 11
The Intellectual Structure of Human Computer Interaction Research.
Shiau, W., Yan, C.-M., & Kuo, C.-C. (2016) · Journal of information science and engineering · Cited by 11
Fank, J., Richardson, N. T., & Diermeyer, F. (2019) · Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces · doi:10.1007/s12193-019-00296-w · Cited by 10
Nofz, M. P., & Vendy, P. (2002) · Journal of Communication Inquiry · doi:10.1177/0196859902026001003 · Cited by 11
“Experimental subjects respond to such variables as computer-generated “authoritarianism,” “gender demeanor,” or level of “impatience” in much the same way as they would were human confederates to project the same qualities (Moon and Nass 1996; Nass, Moon, and Green 1997).”
BackgroundDesigning interfaces to maximize the quality of collaborative work
Burgoon, J. K., Bengtsson, B., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., & Dunbar, N. E. (2003) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.1999.772735 · Cited by 11
Loy, J. E., & Demberg, V. (2023) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13385 · Cited by 11
Embodied Agents on a Website: Modelling an Attitudinal Route of Influence
de Diesbach, P. B. L., & Midgley, D. F. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_28 · Cited by 10
“Such findings might explain why “naturalness” seems so important for the user in a man-robot or man-machine interaction [1,46,47,48,49].”
BackgroundONLINE PURCHASE DELAY: THE ROLES OF ONLINE CONSUMER EXPERIENCES
Liao, T., Zhongshan, N., Keng, C., & Zhongxiao, E. (2014) · Journal of electronic commerce research · Cited by 10
Creating Online Brand Personality: The Role of Personal Difference
Chung, H., & Ahn, E. (2013) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2013.769472 · Cited by 9
“Based on Moon and Nass’ (1996) study and social response theory, this study suggested six hypotheses of some main effects and two-way and three-way interaction effects among the variables of individual personality, online brand personality, and website structures on subjects’ attitude and…”
BackgroundMethodNuñez, T. R., Jakobowsky, C., Prynda, K., Bergmann, K., & Pütten, A. M. R.-V. D. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103093 · Cited by 12
Besmann, A., & Morrison, K. R. (2012) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0111 · Cited by 9
Emotional Evaluation Of A Product/system
Smith, H. S. (2008) · Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research · Cited by 9
Designing for ease is designing for all
Destounis, P., Garofalakis, J. D., Mavritsakis, G., Rigou, M., Sirmakessis, S., & Tzimas, G. E. (2004) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/09593840410554193 · Cited by 9
Markus, A., Pfister, J., Carolus, A., Andreas Hotho, A., & Wienrich, C. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100229 · Cited by 11
Understanding Children’s Private Speech and Self-Regulation Learning in Web 2.0
Agina, A. M., Tennyson, R. D., & Kommers, P. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2494-8.ch001 · Cited by 8
Addressing loneliness in the workplace through human-robot interaction
Busch, M., Lindermayer, T., Schuster, K., Zhang, J., & von Terzi, P. (2023) · i-com · doi:10.1515/icom-2023-0006 · Cited by 11
Source Factors in Recommender System Credibility Evaluation
Yoo, K., Ulrike Gretzel, B., & Zanker, M. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_20 · Cited by 8
Towards Situation-Adaptive In-Vehicle Voice Output
Stier, D., Munro, K., Heid, U., & Minker, W. (2020) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3405755.3406127 · Cited by 8
“From a user perspective, however, the application of either a similarity [19, 20, 29] or complementarity [11, 15] principle has not been conclusively clarified.”
BackgroundSocial Evaluation of Artificial Agents by Language Varieties
Krenn, B., Schreitter, S., Neubarth, F., & Sieber, G. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33197-8_39 · Cited by 8
Communicating Assertiveness in Robotic Storytellers
Paradeda, R. B., Ferreira, M. J., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_51 · Cited by 7
Alignment of Player and Non-Player Character Assertiveness Levels
Pacheco, A., & Martinho, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · doi:10.1609/aiide.v15i1.5242 · Cited by 7
Older adults’ user experience with introvert and extravert humanoid robot personalities
Zedda, E., Manca, M., Paternò, F., & Santoro, C. (2023) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-023-01054-2 · Cited by 6
Lee, J., You, J. S., & Lee, D. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2307695 · Cited by 8
“Among these five personality factors, extroversion is the most psychologically important because the dimension of extroversion is the strongest factor that explains what an individual is like (Moon & Nass, 1996).”
Lee, H., Lee, K., Lee, K. M., & Choo, H. (2012) · International Conference on Information Networking · doi:10.1109/icoin.2012.6164429 · Cited by 6
Effects of Team-Based Computer Interaction: The Media Equation and Game Design Considerations
Johnson, D. M., & Gardner, J. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11558651_45 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- MOON, Y., & NASS, C.
- Venue
- Communication Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 651-674
- ISSN
- 0093-6502 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3810
- OpenAlex
- W2110531388
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 7.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- person perception, similarity attraction, interpersonal attraction, human-computer 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.
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
