The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Cognition Unbound: Insights Into Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization
Abstract
People conceive of wrathful gods, fickle computers, and selfish genes, attributing human characteristics to a variety of supernatural, technological, and biological agents. This tendency to anthropomorphize nonhuman agents figures prominently in domains ranging from religion to marketing to computer science. Perceiving an agent to be humanlike has important implications for whether the agent is capable of social influence, accountable for its actions, and worthy of moral care and consideration. Three primary factors—elicited agent knowledge, sociality motivation, and effectance motivation—appear to account for a significant amount of variability in anthropomorphism. Identifying these factors that lead people to see nonhuman agents as humanlike also sheds light on the inverse process of dehumanization, whereby people treat human agents as animals or objects. Understanding anthropomorphism can contribute to a more expansive view of social cognition that applies social psychological theory to a wide variety of both human and nonhuman agents.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
“Perceived anthropomorphism (PA) was measured with six adapted items concerning human-like appearance, language, understanding, and emotional responsiveness (Bartneck et al., 2009; Waytz et al., 2010).”
From When loneliness amplifies the risk of problematic emotional dependence: perceived anthropomorphism and basic psychological need satisfaction in AI companion use (2026) · cites this paper as Waytz et al., 2010
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.
Citations
Cites
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
Self-citationDehumanization: An integrative review
Haslam, N. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 · Cited by 2,919
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1134475 · Cited by 2,342
The origin and evolution of religious prosociality
Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1158757 · Cited by 874
Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts
Barrett, J. L., & Keil, F. C. (1996) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0017 · Cited by 769
Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x · Cited by 632
Self-citationMaking sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism.
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020240 · Cited by 587
Self-citationSproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J., & Waters, K. (1996) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1102_1 · Cited by 399
Missing Links in Social Cognition: The Continuum from Nonhuman Agents to Dehumanized Humans
(2008) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.125 · Cited by 59
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.003 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111 · DOI
- 10.1093/oso/9780195069013.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.1 · DOI
- Sanger C., 2008, UCLA Law Review, 56, 351
- 10.1037/0278-7393.34.5.1123 · DOI
- Turner Y., 2008, Paper presented at Radiological Society of North America
- 10.1159/000097681 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610369336 · Cited by 1,228
Self-citationBos, P. A., Panksepp, J., Bluthé, R.-M., & Honk, J. V. (2012) · Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.01.002 · Cited by 429
Someone out there? A study on the social presence of anthropomorphized chatbots
Konya-Baumbach, E., Biller, M., & von Janda, S. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107513 · Cited by 283
Political Polarization and Political Violence
Piazza, J. A. (2023) · Security Studies · doi:10.1080/09636412.2023.2225780 · Cited by 85
Predicting the moral consideration of artificial intelligences
Pauketat, J. V. T., & Anthis, J. R. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107372 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J. T.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University
- University of Chicago
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-62
- ISSN
- 0963-7214
- 1467-8721
- PMC
- PMC4020342
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 9
- Language
- en
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
