CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ideal technologies, ideal women: AI and gender imaginaries in Redditors’ discussions on the Replika bot girlfriend

Depounti, Iliana, Saukko, Paula, Natale, Simone·2023·Media, Culture & Society
DOI 10.1177/01634437221119021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is extensive literature on how expectations and imaginaries about artificial intelligence (AI) guide media and policy discussions. However, it has not been considered how such imaginaries are activated when users interact with AI technologies. We present findings of a study on how users on a subreddit discussed ‘training’ their Replika bot girlfriend. The discussions featured two discursive themes that focused on the AI imaginary of ideal technology and the gendered imaginary of the ideal bot girlfriend. Users expected their AI Replikas to both be customizable to serve their needs and to have a human-like or sassy mind of their own and not spit out machine-like answers. Users thus projected dominant notions of male control over technology and women, mixed with AI and postfeminist fantasies of ostensible independence onto the interactional agents and activated similar scripts embedded in the devices. The vicious feedback loop consolidated dominant scripts on gender and technology whilst appearing novel and created by users. While most research on the use of AI is conducted in applied computer science to improve user experience, this article outlines a media and cultural studies lens for a critical understanding of these emerging technologies as they become embedded in communication and meaning-making.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/01634437221119021

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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 are encouraged to and train their AIs to show desirable traits such as assertiveness, humour, empathy, agreeableness and others.

    “Previous studies about Replika (Maples et al., 2024, Skjuve et al., 2022;Xie & Pentina, 2022;Ta et al., 2020) have found that its users perceive the app as a mental well-being enhancer; it has also been found that users are encouraged to and train their AIs to show desirable traits such as assertiveness, humour, empathy, agreeableness and others (Depounti et al., 2022).”

    From ‘YOU CANNOT EXPECT SUCH VALIDATION IN REAL LIFE:’ HISTORICAL CONTINUITIES AND CHANGE IN WOMEN’S ROMANCING WITH AI CHATBOT REPLIKA (2025) · cites this paper as Depounti et al., 2022

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. 10.1007/s11199-018-0895-7 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/1354856519829679 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/15358593.2018.1479881 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.intcom.2011.03.008 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/3236669 · DOI · Paper page
  6. British Psychological Society (2021) Ethics Guidelines for Internet-Mediated Research. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
  7. Brooks RA (2002) Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
  8. 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/1354856519837792 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/1468-5973.12319 · DOI
  11. Coeckelbergh M (2018) Technology games/gender games: From Wittgenstein’s toolbox and language games to gendered robots and biased artificial intelligence. In: Loh J, Coeckelbergh M (eds) Feminist Philosophy of Technology. Berlin, Germany: J. B. Metzler, pp.27–38.
  12. Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) The domain of creativity. In: Runco MA, Albert RS (eds) Theories of Creativity. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp.190–212.
  13. 10.1080/14797585.2020.1754642 · DOI
  14. Dreyfus H (1979) What Computers Can’t Do: The Limits of Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
  15. Flynn G (2012) Gone Girl: A Novel. Portland, OR: Broadway Books.
  16. Foucault M (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
  17. 10.1177/1367549407075898 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Gn J (2017) Designing affection: On the curious case of machine cuteness. In:Dale JP, Goggin J, Leyda J, et al (eds) The Aesthetics and Affects of Cuteness. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.175–193.
  19. 10.3384/cu.2000.1525.2018102185 · DOI
  20. 10.1086/345324 · DOI
  21. 10.1177/1469540513485274 · DOI
  22. Guzman AL (2017) Making AI safe for humans: A conversation with Siri. In:Gehl RW, Bakardjieva M (eds) Socialbots & Their Friends: Digital Media and the Automation of Sociality. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.69–82.
  23. 10.1177/0163443720916412 · DOI
  24. 10.1177/1461444820923679 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/0893318920972649 · DOI
  26. 10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4 · DOI
  27. Jenkins H (2006) Convergence Culture. New York, NY: NYU Press.
  28. 10.30658/hmc.2.9 · DOI
  29. 10.5749/j.ctv65sz27 · DOI
  30. 10.7551/mitpress/11171.001.0001 · DOI
  31. 10.1177/01634437211029890 · DOI
  32. Leyda J (2016) Cute twenty-first-century post-fembots. In:Dale JP, Goggin J, Leyda J, et al (eds) The Aesthetics and Affects of Cuteness. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.161–184.
  33. Liu C (2000) Copying Machines: Taking Notes for the Automaton. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  34. 10.30658/hmc.2.5 · DOI
  35. 10.1177/0163443719855301 · DOI
  36. 10.1177/1461444820929321 · DOI
  37. Marino MC (2006) I chatbot: The gender and race performativity of conversational agents. PhD Thesis University of California Riverside. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/3c91805eb882d2a56d58aaa6f809fa50/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (accessed 15 December 2021).
  38. 10.1080/1369118X.2011.641993 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Marvin C (1989) When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking About Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  40. Milne G (2021) Uses and abuses of hype. In: Kaltheunuer F (ed.) Fake AI. Lublin: Petit pp.115–122. Available at: Meatspace Press. https://ia804607.us.archive.org/3/items/fake-ai/Fake_AI.pdf
  41. Milner RM (2013) Hacking the social: Internet memes identity antagonism and the logic of lulz. The Fibreculture Journal 22. Available at: http://twentytwo.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-156-hacking-the-social-internet-memes-identity-antagonism-and-the-logic-of-lulz/ (accessed 8 October 2021).
  42. 10.1093/oso/9780190080365.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1177/01634437221099614 · DOI
  44. 10.3390/mti2030060 · DOI
  45. Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: SAGE.
  46. 10.1177/14614448221075296. · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.28968/cftt.v5i1.29586 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Pietronudo E (2018) “Japanese women’s language” and artificial intelligence: Azuma Hikari gender stereotypes and gender norms. MA Thesis Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10579/12791 (accessed 19 June 2021).
  49. 10.17705/1thci.12201 · DOI
  50. Reeves B, Nass C (1998) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
  51. 10.1007/978-3-030-68288-0_3 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1177/0162243918806061 · DOI
  53. 10.1007/978-3-319-66077-6 · DOI
  54. 10.1111/1467-9566.12774 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.2478/nor-2022-0004 · DOI
  56. 10.1177/2053951720923377. · DOI
  57. Skjuve M Brandtzaeg PB (2018) Measuring user experience in chatbots: An approach to interpersonal communication competence. INSCI Workshops. Available at: https://conversations2018.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/conversations_2018_paper_8_preprint1.pdf (accessed 20 August 2021).
  58. 10.17011/ht/urn.201902201607 · DOI
  59. Strengers Y, Kennedy J (2021) The Smart Wife Why Siri, Alexa, and Other Smart Home Devices Need a Feminist Reboot. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  60. Sweeney ME (2013) Not Just a Pretty (Inter)face: A Critical Analysis of Microsoft’s ‘Ms. Dewey.’ PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign.
  61. 10.1145/3173574.3174178 · DOI
  62. 10.1177/0735275112457914 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 10.1177/1461444820978293 · DOI
  64. Turkle S (1984) The Second Self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  65. van Wezel MMC, Croes EAJ, Antheunis ML (2021) “I’m here for you”: Can social chatbots truly support their users? A literature review. In: Følstad A, Araujo T, Papadopoulos S, et al (eds) Chatbot Research and Design. CONVERSATIONS 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12604. Cham: Springer, pp.96–113.
  66. Wajcman J (2010) TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
  67. 10.1080/10510974.2020.1749683 · DOI
  68. Wood G (2002) Edison’s Eve: A Magical History of the Quest for Mechanical Life. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
  69. 10.1080/15295036.2018.1488082 · DOI
  70. 10.1080/10572250701380766 · DOI
  71. 10.1007/978-3-030-80091-8_33 · DOI
  72. 10.1177/01634437211064964 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Depounti, I., Saukko, P., & Natale, S.
Affiliations
  • Loughborough University, UK
  • University of Turin, Italy
ORCID
Venue
Media, Culture & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2022-08-19
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
720-736
ISSN
  • 0163-4437
  • 1460-3675
DOI
10.1177/01634437221119021
Cited by
128
References
13
Language
en
Licence

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