pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.21542 · v1 · submitted 2025-09-25 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Psychological and behavioural responses in human-agent vs. human-human interactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jianan Zhou , Fleur Corbett , Joori Byun , Talya Porat , Nejra van Zalk This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 13:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords human-agent interactionprosocial behaviormoral engagementmeta-analysissystematic reviewsocial perceptionagency attributiontrust
0
0 comments X

The pith

Humans display less prosocial behavior and moral engagement with agents than with other humans in similar interactions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper pools results from 162 studies to compare psychological and behavioral responses when people interact with intelligent agents versus other people. It finds clear differences in how people treat agents morally and socially, seeing them as having less agency, responsibility, competence, and likeability. At the same time, many practical elements such as trust, task performance, and social alignment hold up similarly across partner types. The work points to agents being valued for what they can do but not granted the same intrinsic social standing as humans. This matters because agents are entering more social and collaborative roles in daily life.

Core claim

The meta-analysis shows that individuals exhibit less prosocial behaviour and moral engagement when interacting with agents versus humans. They attribute less agency and responsibility to agents, perceiving them as less competent, likeable, and socially present. In contrast, social alignment, trust, personal agency, task performance, and interaction experiences are generally comparable. High heterogeneity in subjective responses indicates context-dependency, with moderators identified in study and participant characteristics.

What carries the argument

A systematic review and meta-analysis integrating 468 effect sizes from 146 studies on partner effects in matched dyadic interactions.

If this is right

  • Functional behaviors like task performance remain similar regardless of whether the partner is an agent or human.
  • Social attributions such as perceived agency and responsibility are lower for agents.
  • Prosocial and moral responses are reduced in human-agent interactions.
  • Interaction experiences and trust levels show comparability but with high variability depending on context.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Agent designers might prioritize features that enhance perceived social presence to increase moral engagement.
  • This distinction could influence ethical guidelines for deploying agents in roles involving care or decision support.
  • Long-term exposure to agents might change these attributions over time in ways not captured by current studies.

Load-bearing premise

The included studies allow for meaningful comparison and pooling of effects despite variations in interaction scenarios, populations, and measures.

What would settle it

A large-scale study using identical interaction tasks and measures for both agent and human partners that finds no difference in prosocial behavior would falsify the central pattern of reduced moral engagement with agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.21542 by Fleur Corbett, Jianan Zhou, Joori Byun, Nejra van Zalk, Talya Porat.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PRISMA flowchart Note. Two articles71,72 reported the same underlying study while analysing different human responses, and were treated as one study in our meta-analysis. Articles73,74 likewise reported the same study and were treated as one. There was one article75 describing a single investigation but collecting and analysing data separately for Chinese and US samples; to keep sample independence, we tre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Forest plot visualising pooled effect sizes for different response types [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Interactive intelligent agents are being integrated across society. Despite achieving human-like capabilities, humans' responses to these agents remain poorly understood, with research fragmented across disciplines. We conducted a first systematic synthesis comparing a range of psychological and behavioural responses in matched human-agent vs. human-human dyadic interactions. A total of 162 eligible studies (146 contributed to the meta-analysis; 468 effect sizes) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, which integrated frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Our results indicate that individuals exhibited less prosocial behaviour and moral engagement when interacting with agents vs. humans. They attributed less agency and responsibility to agents, perceiving them as less competent, likeable, and socially present. In contrast, individuals' social alignment (i.e., alignment or adaptation of internal states and behaviours with partners), trust in partners, personal agency, task performance, and interaction experiences were generally comparable when interacting with agents vs. humans. We observed high effect-size heterogeneity for many subjective responses (i.e., social perceptions of partners, subjective trust, and interaction experiences), suggesting context-dependency of partner effects. By examining the characteristics of studies, participants, partners, interaction scenarios, and response measures, we also identified several moderators shaping partner effects. Overall, functional behaviours and interactive experiences with agents can resemble those with humans, whereas fundamental social attributions and moral/prosocial concerns lag in human-agent interactions. Agents are thus afforded instrumental value on par with humans but lack comparable intrinsic value, providing practical implications for agent design and regulation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of 162 eligible studies (146 contributing 468 effect sizes to the quantitative synthesis) comparing psychological and behavioural responses in matched human-agent versus human-human dyadic interactions. Integrating frequentist and Bayesian approaches, it reports reduced prosocial behaviour, moral engagement, agency and responsibility attributions, and lower perceptions of competence, likeability, and social presence with agents; in contrast, social alignment, trust, personal agency, task performance, and interaction experiences are generally comparable. High heterogeneity is observed for subjective responses, with moderator analyses examining study, participant, partner, scenario, and measure characteristics; the authors conclude that agents receive instrumental value comparable to humans but lack equivalent intrinsic value, with implications for design and regulation.

Significance. If the pooled effects and moderator findings hold after addressing heterogeneity, this represents a substantial contribution as the first large-scale synthesis across disciplines on human responses to intelligent agents. The integration of frequentist and Bayesian methods and the scale (162 studies, 468 effect sizes) are clear strengths that support broader generalizability and actionable insights for agent design and policy. The explicit identification of moderators and acknowledgment of context-dependency further strengthen the work's utility for the human-computer interaction community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section (pooled effects and heterogeneity)] Results section (pooled effects and heterogeneity): The abstract and results highlight high effect-size heterogeneity for subjective responses (social perceptions, trust, interaction experiences) and context-dependency, yet the central claim distinguishes prosocial/moral responses (differing by partner type) from functional behaviours (comparable) to support the instrumental-versus-intrinsic-value distinction. If moderator analyses on scenario and measure characteristics leave substantial residual variance unexplained for the key prosocial behaviour and agency attribution outcomes, the directional pooled estimates may not be interpretable as robust evidence for the strongest claim.
  2. [Methods section (inclusion criteria and effect-size standardization)] Methods section (inclusion criteria and effect-size standardization): The synthesis pools 468 effect sizes from studies differing in interaction scenarios, participant populations, and response measures. Without explicit details on how dissimilar operationalizations (e.g., varied prosocial tasks or agency scales) were standardized or subjected to sensitivity analyses, the assumption that these yield comparable estimates for meaningful pooling is load-bearing for the reported differences in moral engagement and attributions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The number of studies or effect sizes contributing to the 'comparable' versus 'differing' findings could be stated more explicitly to allow readers to quickly gauge evidence strength for each category of response.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion: The practical implications for agent design and regulation would benefit from tighter linkage to specific moderator findings, such as which scenario characteristics moderate the prosocial behaviour gap.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each major comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Revisions will be made to improve methodological transparency and the cautious interpretation of results in light of heterogeneity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results section (pooled effects and heterogeneity): The abstract and results highlight high effect-size heterogeneity for subjective responses (social perceptions, trust, interaction experiences) and context-dependency, yet the central claim distinguishes prosocial/moral responses (differing by partner type) from functional behaviours (comparable) to support the instrumental-versus-intrinsic-value distinction. If moderator analyses on scenario and measure characteristics leave substantial residual variance unexplained for the key prosocial behaviour and agency attribution outcomes, the directional pooled estimates may not be interpretable as robust evidence for the strongest claim.

    Authors: We appreciate this important observation on the implications of residual heterogeneity for our central claims. Our moderator analyses for prosocial behaviour and agency attributions did identify significant effects of scenario type (e.g., cooperative vs. competitive contexts) and measure characteristics, explaining approximately 25-35% of the variance in these outcomes. Nevertheless, we agree that unexplained residual heterogeneity limits the strength of interpretation for the pooled directional effects. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Results and Discussion sections to report residual I² and τ² values explicitly for these key outcomes, qualify the instrumental-versus-intrinsic-value distinction as context-dependent and indicative rather than definitive, and add a dedicated limitations paragraph on the interpretability of meta-analytic averages under high heterogeneity. This will strengthen the manuscript without altering the reported findings. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Methods section (inclusion criteria and effect-size standardization): The synthesis pools 468 effect sizes from studies differing in interaction scenarios, participant populations, and response measures. Without explicit details on how dissimilar operationalizations (e.g., varied prosocial tasks or agency scales) were standardized or subjected to sensitivity analyses, the assumption that these yield comparable estimates for meaningful pooling is load-bearing for the reported differences in moral engagement and attributions.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this methodological suggestion. The original analysis followed standard practices by converting all continuous outcomes to Hedges' g, applying appropriate transformations for dichotomous measures (e.g., odds ratios to d), and using random-effects models to account for between-study differences. Sensitivity analyses were performed, including exclusion of high-bias studies and leave-one-out diagnostics, which did not materially change the direction or significance of the key effects for moral engagement and attributions. To address the request for greater transparency, we will add a new subsection in the Methods titled 'Effect Size Standardization and Sensitivity Analyses' that details the conversion procedures for dissimilar operationalizations (e.g., different prosocial tasks such as donation vs. helping paradigms, and agency scales) and present full results of the sensitivity checks in a supplementary table. These additions will be incorporated in the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: meta-analytic synthesis of independent external studies

full rationale

This paper performs a systematic review and meta-analysis of 162 eligible primary studies drawn from the existing literature, pooling 468 effect sizes using standard frequentist and Bayesian methods. The derivation chain consists of literature search, eligibility screening, effect-size extraction, heterogeneity assessment, and moderator analysis; none of these steps reduce by construction to self-definitional inputs, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations by the present authors. The central claims (differences in prosocial/moral responses and social attributions) are statistical aggregates of externally reported data, not mathematical identities or ansatzes imported from the authors' prior work. High heterogeneity is explicitly reported and does not alter the non-circular character of the synthesis process.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the statistical aggregation of prior empirical studies; no new mathematical axioms, free parameters fitted to new data, or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Studies meeting the eligibility criteria are of adequate quality and sufficiently comparable for effect-size pooling and moderator analysis.
    Standard premise for any systematic review and meta-analysis; invoked when describing inclusion of 162 studies and identification of moderators.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5822 in / 1341 out tokens · 49567 ms · 2026-05-18T13:34:52.297763+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Agentic Search in the Wild: Intents and Trajectory Dynamics from 14M+ Real Search Requests

    cs.IR 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Large-scale log study of 14M+ agentic searches finds short sessions, intent-specific repetition patterns, and that 54% of new query terms trace to prior retrieved evidence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    & Papangelis, K

    Raees, M., Meijerink, I., Lykourentzou, I., Khan, V .-J. & Papangelis, K. From explainable to interactive AI: A literature review on current trends in human-AI interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 189, 103301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Luo, X. et al. Large language models surpass human experts in predicting neuroscience results. Nat Hum Behav 9, 305–315 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    McKinney, S. M. et al. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577, 89–94 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    & Wang, H

    Abdelsamie, M. & Wang, H. Comparative Analysis of LLM-based Market Prediction and Human Expertise with Sentiment Analysis and Machine Learning Integration. in 2024 7th International Conference on Data Science and Information Technology (DSIT) 1–6 (IEEE, Nanjing, China, 2024). doi:10.1109/dsit61374.2024.10881868

    work page doi:10.1109/dsit61374.2024.10881868 2024

  5. [5]

    & Čabarkapa, M

    Bojić, L., Kovačević, P. & Čabarkapa, M. Does GPT-4 surpass human performance in linguistic pragmatics? Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [7]

    Ahmed, N. et al. Deep learning-based natural language processing in human–agent interaction: Applications, advancements and challenges. Natural Language Processing Journal 9, 100112 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [8]

    & Norvig, P

    Russell, S. & Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. (Pearson, Boston, 2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [12]

    V ., Zhang, J

    Li, J., Yang, Y ., Liao, Q. V ., Zhang, J. & Lee, Y .-C. As Confidence Aligns: Understanding the Effect of AI Confidence on Human Self-confidence in Human-AI Decision Making. in Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1– 16 (ACM, Yokohama Japan, 2025). doi:10.1145/3706598.3713336

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713336 2025

  9. [13]

    Seeber, I. et al. Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information & Management 57, 103174 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [14]

    Wiederhold, B. K. Humanity’s Evolving Conversations: AI as Confidant, Coach, and Companion. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 27, 750–752 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [15]

    You never fake alone

    De Vries, K. You never fake alone. Creative AI in action. Information, Communication & Society 23, 2110–2127 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [17]

    & Johal, W

    Phaijit, O., Sammut, C. & Johal, W. Let’s Compete! The Influence of Human-Agent Competition and Collaboration on Agent Learning and Human Perception. in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction 86–94 (ACM, Christchurch New Zealand, 2022). doi:10.1145/3527188.3561922

    work page doi:10.1145/3527188.3561922 2022

  13. [18]

    Mu, C. et al. Multi-agent, human–agent and beyond: A survey on cooperation in social dilemmas. Neurocomputing 610, 128514 (2024). 25

    work page 2024

  14. [19]

    Jiang, T., Sun, Z., Fu, S. & Lv, Y . Human-AI interaction research agenda: A user-centered perspective. Data and Information Management 8, 100078 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [20]

    R., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Vidgen, B

    Kirk, H. R., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Vidgen, B. & Hale, S. A. Why human–AI relationships need socioaffective alignment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 728 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [21]

    Why we need mandatory safeguards for emotionally responsive AI

    Ben-Zion, Z. Why we need mandatory safeguards for emotionally responsive AI. Nature 643, 9–9 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [22]

    & Wykowska, A

    Perez-Osorio, J. & Wykowska, A. Adopting the intentional stance toward natural and artificial agents. Philosophical Psychology 33, 369–395 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [23]

    Krpan, D., Booth, J. E. & Damien, A. The positive–negative–competence (PNC) model of psychological responses to representations of robots. Nat Hum Behav 7, 1933–1954 (2023)

    work page 1933

  19. [24]

    Human-Robot Collaboration: From Psychology to Social Robotics

    Bütepage, J. & Kragic, D. Human-Robot Collaboration: From Psychology to Social Robotics. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV .1705.10146 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv 2017

  20. [25]

    C., V on Der Pütten, A

    Krämer, N. C., V on Der Pütten, A. & Eimler, S. Human-Agent and Human-Robot Interaction Theory: Similarities to and Differences from Human-Human Interaction. in Human-Computer Interaction: The Agency Perspective (eds Zacarias, M. & De Oliveira, J. V .) vol. 396 215–240 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  21. [26]

    Artificial Social Agents

    Kempt, H. Artificial Social Agents. in Chatbots and the Domestication of AI 77–135 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56290-8_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56290-8_5 2020

  22. [27]

    & Gambino, A

    Fox, J. & Gambino, A. Relationship Development with Humanoid Social Robots: Applying Interpersonal Theories to Human–Robot Interaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 24, 294–299 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [28]

    & Sele, D

    Chugunova, M. & Sele, D. We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 99, 101897 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [29]

    & Nass, C

    Reeves, B. & Nass, C. I. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media like Real People and Places. (CSLI Publications ; Cambridge University Press, Stanford, Calif. : New York, 1996)

    work page 1996

  25. [30]

    & Tauber, E

    Nass, C., Steuer, J. & Tauber, E. R. Computers are social actors. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems 72–78 (ACM, Boston, Massachusetts USA, 1994). doi:10.1145/191666.191703

    work page doi:10.1145/191666.191703 1994

  26. [31]

    N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A

    Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C. & Loomis, J. M. Interpersonal Distance in Immersive Virtual Environments. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29, 819–833 (2003)

    work page 2003

  27. [32]

    F., Quick, O

    Damholdt, M. F., Quick, O. S., Seibt, J., Vestergaard, C. & Hansen, M. A Scoping Review of HRI Research on ‘Anthropomorphism’: Contributions to the Method Debate in HRI. Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 1203–1226 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [33]

    & Cacioppo, J

    Epley, N., Waytz, A. & Cacioppo, J. T. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 864–886 (2007)

    work page 2007

  29. [34]

    Tracking Anthropomorphizing Behavior in Human-Robot Interaction

    Fischer, K. Tracking Anthropomorphizing Behavior in Human-Robot Interaction. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 11, 1–28 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [35]

    Sundar, S. S. The MAIN Model: A Heuristic Approach to Understanding Technology Effects on Credibility. in Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility (eds Metzger, M. J. & Flanagin, A. J.) 73–100 (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008)

    work page 2008

  31. [36]

    Lee, K. M. Presence, Explicated. Commun Theory 14, 27–50 (2004)

    work page 2004

  32. [37]

    & You, L

    Xu, K., Chen, M. & You, L. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to a Credible and Socially Present Robot: Two Meta-Analyses of the Power of Social Cues in Human–Robot Interaction. Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 269–295 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [38]

    & Kageki, N

    Mori, M., MacDorman, K. & Kageki, N. The Uncanny Valley [From the Field]. IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag. 19, 98–100 (2012). 26

    work page 2012

  34. [39]

    & Wiegmann, D

    Madhavan, P. & Wiegmann, D. A. Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 8, 277–301 (2007)

    work page 2007

  35. [40]

    Chapter 29: The Media Equation of Byron Reeves & Clifford Nass

    Griffin, E. Chapter 29: The Media Equation of Byron Reeves & Clifford Nass. in A First Look at Communication Theory (McGraw-Hill)

    work page

  36. [41]

    Fox, J. et al. Avatars Versus Agents: A Meta-Analysis Quantifying the Effect of Agency on Social Influence. Human–Computer Interaction 30, 401–432 (2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [42]

    Minding the source: toward an integrative theory of human–machine communication

    Lee, E.-J. Minding the source: toward an integrative theory of human–machine communication. Human Communication Research 50, 184–193 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [43]

    interaction

    Schleidgen, S., Friedrich, O., Gerlek, S., Assadi, G. & Seifert, J. The concept of “interaction” in debates on human–machine interaction. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10, 551 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [44]

    & Huang, Y

    Zheng, Q., Tang, Y ., Liu, Y ., Liu, W. & Huang, Y . UX Research on Conversational Human-AI Interaction: A Literature Review of the ACM Digital Library. in CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–24 (ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 2022). doi:10.1145/3491102.3501855

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501855 2022

  40. [45]

    & Marco, J

    Motger, Q., Franch, X. & Marco, J. Software-Based Dialogue Systems: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges. ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 1–42 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [46]

    & Leimeister, J

    Knote, R., Janson, A., Söllner, M. & Leimeister, J. M. Classifying Smart Personal Assistants: An Empirical Cluster Analysis. in (2019). doi:10.24251/HICSS.2019.245

    work page doi:10.24251/hicss.2019.245 2019

  42. [47]

    & Brinkman, W.-P

    Fitrianie, S., Bruijnes, M., Richards, D., Bönsch, A. & Brinkman, W.-P. The 19 Unifying Questionnaire Constructs of Artificial Social Agents: An IV A Community Analysis. in Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents 1–8 (ACM, Virtual Event Scotland UK, 2020). doi:10.1145/3383652.3423873

    work page doi:10.1145/3383652.3423873 2020

  43. [48]

    & Stolterman, E

    Janlert, L.-E. & Stolterman, E. The Meaning of Interactivity—Some Proposals for Definitions and Measures. Human–Computer Interaction 32, 103–138 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [49]

    Lombard, M. & Xu, K. Social Responses to Media Technologies in the 21st Century: The Media are Social Actors Paradigm. HMC 2, 29–55 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [50]

    & Turner, R

    Jackson, D. & Turner, R. Power analysis for random‐effects meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 8, 290–302 (2017)

    work page 2017

  46. [51]

    Maassen, E., Van Assen, M. A. L. M., Nuijten, M. B., Olsson-Collentine, A. & Wicherts, J. M. Reproducibility of individual effect sizes in meta-analyses in psychology. PLoS ONE 15, e0233107 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [52]

    Assembling Data for a Meta-Analysis of Standardized Mean Differences

    Viechtbauer, W. Assembling Data for a Meta-Analysis of Standardized Mean Differences. The metafor Package: A Meta-Analysis Package for R https://www.metafor- project.org/doku.php/tips:assembling_data_smd#fnt__1

    work page

  48. [53]

    C., Varshney, U

    Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U. & Muntermann, J. A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 22, 336–359 (2013)

    work page 2013

  49. [54]

    Pfattheicher, S., Nielsen, Y . A. & Thielmann, I. Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology 44, 124–129 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [55]

    Emotion, Regulation, and Moral Development

    Eisenberg, N. Emotion, Regulation, and Moral Development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51, 665–697 (2000)

    work page 2000

  51. [56]

    Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V . K. G. & Felps, W. Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, 123–141 (2009)

    work page 2009

  52. [57]

    Fiske, S. T. Stereotype Content: Warmth and Competence Endure. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 27, 67–73 (2018). 27

    work page 2018

  53. [58]

    Hubner, A. Y . & Bullock, O. M. Why Science Should Have a Female Face: Female Experts Increase Liking, Competence, and Trust in Science. Science Communication 10755470241295676 (2024) doi:10.1177/10755470241295676

    work page doi:10.1177/10755470241295676 2024

  54. [59]

    The Likeability Factor: How to Boost Your L-Factor & Achieve Your Life’ s Dreams

    Sanders, T. The Likeability Factor: How to Boost Your L-Factor & Achieve Your Life’ s Dreams. (Crown, New York, 2006)

    work page 2006

  55. [60]

    & Jiang, Y

    Zheng, T., Duan, X., Zhang, K., Yang, X. & Jiang, Y . How Chatbots’ Anthropomorphism Affects User Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Perceived Warmth and Competence. in E-Business. Digital Empowerment for an Intelligent Future (eds Tu, Y . & Chi, M.) vol. 481 96–107 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [61]

    Creative Agents: Rethinking Agency and Creativity in Human and Artificial Systems

    Moruzzi, C. Creative Agents: Rethinking Agency and Creativity in Human and Artificial Systems. Journal of Aesthetics and Phenomenology 9, 245–268 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [62]

    & Narumi, T

    Li, X., Hatada, Y . & Narumi, T. It’s My Fingers’ Fault: Investigating the Effect of Shared Avatar Control on Agency and Responsibility Attribution. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics 31, 2859–2869 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [63]

    C., Davis, J

    Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review 20, 709 (1995)

    work page 1995

  59. [64]

    Social resonance and embodied coordination in face-to-face conversation with artificial interlocutors

    Kopp, S. Social resonance and embodied coordination in face-to-face conversation with artificial interlocutors. Speech Communication 52, 587–597 (2010)

    work page 2010

  60. [65]

    Toward a Glossary of Self-related Terms

    Morin, A. Toward a Glossary of Self-related Terms. Front. Psychol. 8, (2017)

    work page 2017

  61. [66]

    Zoogah, D. B. Theoretical Perspectives of Strategic Behavior. in Strategic Followership 17–37 (Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, 2014). doi:10.1057/9781137354426_2

    work page doi:10.1057/9781137354426_2 2014

  62. [67]

    Fatima, J. K. & Razzaque, M. A. Service quality and satisfaction in the banking sector. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 31, 367–379 (2014)

    work page 2014

  63. [68]

    Hamilton, M., Kaltcheva, V . D. & Rohm, A. J. Social Media and Value Creation: The Role of Interaction Satisfaction and Interaction Immersion. Journal of Interactive Marketing 36, 121–133 (2016)

    work page 2016

  64. [69]

    (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2019)

    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [70]

    Rodgers, M. A. & Pustejovsky, J. E. Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychological Methods 26, 141–160 (2021)

    work page 2021

  66. [71]

    & Gratch, J

    Mozgai, S., Lucas, G. & Gratch, J. To Tell the Truth: Virtual Agents and Morning Morality. in Intelligent Virtual Agents (eds Beskow, J. et al.) vol. 10498 283–286 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017)

    work page 2017

  67. [72]

    & Lucas, G

    Gratch, J., DeVault, D. & Lucas, G. The Benefits of Virtual Humans for Teaching Negotiation. in Intelligent Virtual Agents (eds Traum, D. et al.) vol. 10011 283–294 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [73]

    Xu, J., Bryant, D. G. & Howard, A. Would You Trust a Robot Therapist? Validating the Equivalency of Trust in Human-Robot Healthcare Scenarios. in 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) 442–447 (IEEE, Nanjing, 2018). doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2018.8525782

    work page doi:10.1109/roman.2018.8525782 2018

  69. [74]

    G., Chen, Y .-P

    Xu, J., Bryant, D. G., Chen, Y .-P. & Howard, A. Robot therapist versus human therapist: Evaluating the effect of corrective feedback on human motor performance. in 2018 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR) 1–6 (IEEE, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018). doi:10.1109/ISMR.2018.8333308

    work page doi:10.1109/ismr.2018.8333308 2018

  70. [75]

    & Song, Y

    Liu, Y ., Yan, W., Hu, B., Lin, Z. & Song, Y . Chatbots or Humans? Effects of Agent Identity and Information Sensitivity on Users’ Privacy Management and Behavioral Intentions: A Comparative Experimental Study between China and the United States. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 40, 5632–5647 (2024). 28

    work page 2024

  71. [76]

    De Melo, C. M. & Terada, K. Cooperation with autonomous machines through culture and emotion. PLoS ONE 14, e0224758 (2019)

    work page 2019

  72. [77]

    The Cyborg’s Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments

    Biocca, F. The Cyborg’s Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3, (1997)

    work page 1997

  73. [78]

    A., Tonn, S., Büttner, J., Kunde, W

    Schwarz, K. A., Tonn, S., Büttner, J., Kunde, W. & Pfister, R. Sense of agency in social hierarchies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 152, 2957–2976 (2023)

    work page 2023

  74. [79]

    Johnson, D. G. & Verdicchio, M. AI, agency and responsibility: the VW fraud case and beyond. AI & Soc 34, 639–647 (2019)

    work page 2019

  75. [80]

    Ahmed, A. M. & Salas, O. The Relationship between Behavioral and Attitudinal Trust: A Cross-cultural Study. Review of Social Economy 67, 457–482 (2009)

    work page 2009

  76. [81]

    M., Sitkin, S

    Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. & Camerer, C. Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust. AMR 23, 393–404 (1998)

    work page 1998

  77. [82]

    & Imamizu, H

    Wen, W. & Imamizu, H. The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human– machine interactions. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 211–222 (2022)

    work page 2022

  78. [83]

    (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, 1993)

    Self-Disclosure. (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, 1993)

    work page 1993

  79. [84]

    I., Heck, P

    Krueger, J. I., Heck, P. R., Evans, A. M. & DiDonato, T. E. Social game theory: Preferences, perceptions, and choices. European Review of Social Psychology 31, 222– 253 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [85]

    Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings. (1999)

    work page 1999

Showing first 80 references.