CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 292Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

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

MOON, YOUNGME, NASS, CLIFFORD·1996·Communication Research
DOI 10.1177/009365096023006002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1177/009365096023006002

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Bruch, M. A., 1980, American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 2, 71
  2. Byrne, D., 1965, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 240
  3. Fogg, B. J., International Communication Association meeting
  4. Lafferty, J. C., The desert survival problem
  5. Nass, C. I., International Communication Association meeting
  6. Nass, C. I., International Communication Association meeting
  7. Nass, C. I., 1994, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 40, 543
  8. Nias, D. K., Love and attraction, 151
  9. Wiggins, J. D., 1983, American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 5, 169
  10. Wiggins, J. S., 1985, Perspectives in Personality, 1, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 292

Related

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
DOI
10.1177/009365096023006002
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
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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