pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18259 · v1 · pith:PMDIEN6Snew · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Caring Without Feeling: Affective Dynamics as the Control Layer of Human-AI Agent Collaboration

Junjie Xu , Xingjiao Wu , Zihao Zhang , Yujia Xu , Yuzhe Yang , Jin Zhu , Luwei Xiao , Wen Wu
show 1 more author
Liang He
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 23:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords affective dynamicshuman-AI collaborationAI agentstrust calibrationdelegation decisionsaffective computingAI governance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Affective dynamics function as the control layer through which humans and AI agents negotiate capability, uncertainty and responsibility.

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

The paper synthesizes work on affective computing, simulated empathy in language models, trust in automation, and AI safety to argue that affective cues shape how people decide to delegate tasks, monitor performance, and correct errors when working with autonomous agents. It claims these cues operate in interaction loops that govern reliance and oversight rather than residing inside the AI itself. A sympathetic reader would care because agents that plan, retain memory, and act with partial autonomy are already handling consequential work, so an integrated account of affective coordination could improve how such systems are built and regulated.

Core claim

Affective dynamics are the processes through which affective cues, emotion-like behaviour and perceived agent affect shape trust calibration, delegation decisions, error correction, dependence and governance. The framework treats affect not as an internal property of AI but as a coordination layer through which humans and agents negotiate capability, uncertainty and responsibility. This provides a foundation for calibrated measurement, purposeful design and informed governance.

What carries the argument

Affective dynamics as the control layer: interaction loops in which model-generated affective signals enter human-agent exchanges that govern reliance, repair and oversight.

If this is right

  • Measurement instruments can be developed to track how specific affective signals alter reliance and repair loops.
  • Design choices for agents can intentionally modulate affective cues to support appropriate delegation and oversight.
  • Governance frameworks can incorporate affective coordination as a factor when assigning responsibility between humans and agents.
  • Error patterns and dependence levels become predictable from the structure of affective interaction loops.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The framework suggests empirical tests that vary the timing and intensity of affective signals across multi-session agent tasks to identify thresholds that shift human oversight.
  • It implies that similar coordination mechanisms may operate in non-AI automation settings, offering a bridge to existing human-factors research on supervisory control.
  • Safety evaluations of autonomous agents would need to include interactional measures of perceived affect rather than relying solely on model internals.

Load-bearing premise

The fragmented literatures on affective computing, simulated empathy in large language models, trust in automation and AI safety can be synthesized into one integrated account of how affective cues operate in agentic collaboration.

What would settle it

An experiment in which humans delegate consequential tasks to autonomous agents but show no measurable change in delegation rate, trust ratings or error-correction behaviour when affective signals are added or removed would falsify the central claim.

read the original abstract

AI agents that plan, retain memory across sessions, invoke external tools and act with partial autonomy are transforming human--AI collaboration. Research on affective computing, simulated empathy in large language models, trust in automation and AI safety has illuminated important design principles, yet these literatures remain fragmented. No integrated account explains how affective cues operate within agentic collaboration -- settings in which humans delegate, monitor and correct consequential tasks. This Review synthesises computational and interactional mechanisms of affective dynamics: the processes through which affective cues, emotion-like behaviour and perceived agent affect shape trust calibration, delegation decisions, error correction, dependence and governance. We trace how model-generated affective signals enter interaction loops that govern reliance, repair and oversight, and propose a framework that treats affect not as an internal property of AI but as a coordination layer through which humans and agents negotiate capability, uncertainty and responsibility. The framework provides a foundation for calibrated measurement, purposeful design and informed governance.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review paper that synthesizes research from affective computing, simulated empathy in large language models, trust in automation, and AI safety. It proposes a framework in which affective dynamics function as the control layer of human-AI agent collaboration, shaping trust calibration, delegation decisions, error correction, dependence, and governance. The central claim is that model-generated affective signals enter interaction loops that allow humans and agents to negotiate capability, uncertainty, and responsibility, providing a foundation for measurement, design, and governance rather than a validated empirical model.

Significance. If the synthesis holds, the framework would offer an integrated perspective on affective cues in agentic settings that could inform the design of collaborative AI systems and support more calibrated oversight mechanisms. By reframing affect as a coordination layer rather than an internal property, the work could help bridge currently fragmented literatures and guide future empirical studies on reliance and repair in autonomous agent interactions.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'no integrated account explains how affective cues operate within agentic collaboration' would benefit from a short clause indicating the specific gaps (e.g., lack of joint treatment of delegation and oversight) to make the motivation more precise.
  2. [Framework] Framework section: The claim that the framework 'treats affect not as an internal property of AI but as a coordination layer' is central; adding one or two concrete examples of how existing affective-computing mechanisms map onto this layer would strengthen the integration without requiring new data.
  3. [Governance] Governance discussion: The section on informed governance references AI safety literature but could note one or two existing regulatory frameworks (e.g., EU AI Act provisions on transparency) to illustrate applicability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive summary and positive assessment of the manuscript. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No specific major comments appear in the report, so our response addresses the overall evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The manuscript is a conceptual review paper that synthesizes fragmented literatures on affective computing, simulated empathy, trust in automation, and AI safety into a proposed coordination-layer framework. It contains no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or empirical predictions. All central claims are scoped as providing a foundation for measurement and design rather than deriving new results from self-referential steps or self-citations. The argument structure is self-contained as an integrative synthesis without any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a conceptual framework but no new free parameters, axioms beyond domain assumptions, or invented entities; the framework itself is a synthesis of prior literatures.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The literatures on affective computing, simulated empathy in large language models, trust in automation and AI safety are fragmented and require integration for agentic collaboration.
    Stated in the abstract as the motivation for the review.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5716 in / 1180 out tokens · 22143 ms · 2026-06-30T23:28:10.525775+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S.et al.Generative agents: Interac- tive simulacra of human behavior.Proceed- ings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology 1–22 (2023)

    Park, J. S.et al.Generative agents: Interac- tive simulacra of human behavior.Proceed- ings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology 1–22 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Wang, L.et al.A survey on large language model based autonomous agents.Frontiers of Computer Science18, 186345 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Xi, Z.et al.The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A sur- vey.Science China Information Sciences 68, 121101 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Lee, J. D. & See, K. A. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance.Human factors46, 50–80 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Sharma, M.et al.Towards understand- ing sycophancy in language models.The Twelfth International Conference on Learn- ing Representations(2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Cheng, M.et al.Sycophantic ai decreases prosocial intentions and promotes depen- dence.Science391, eaec8352 (2026). 16

    2026

  7. [7]

    & Campos-Castillo, C

    Laestadius, L., Bishop, A., Gonzalez, M., Illenˇ c´ ık, D. & Campos-Castillo, C. Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot replika.New Media & Society26, 5923–5941 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Amershi, S.et al.Guidelines for human- ai interaction.Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems1–13 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Smuha, N. A. Regulation 2024/1689 of the eur. parl. & council of june 13, 2024 (eu arti- ficial intelligence act).International Legal Materials64, 1234–1381 (2025)

    2024

  10. [10]

    & Verduyn, P

    Kuppens, P. & Verduyn, P. Emotion dynam- ics.Current opinion in psychology17, 22–26 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Calvo, R. A. & D’Mello, S. Affect detec- tion: An interdisciplinary review of models, methods, and their applications.IEEE Transactions on affective computing1, 18– 37 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    & Sengers, P

    Boehner, K., DePaula, R., Dourish, P. & Sengers, P. How emotion is made and measured.International Journal of Human- Computer Studies65, 275–291 (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    & Moon, Y

    Nass, C. & Moon, Y. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues56, 81–103 (2000)

    2000

  14. [14]

    Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–15 (2024)

    Cohn, M.et al.Believing anthropomor- phism: Examining the role of anthropomor- phic cues on trust in large language models. Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–15 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Advances in neural information processing systems35, 27730–27744 (2022)

    Ouyang, L.et al.Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 27730–27744 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    & Lvovsky, M

    Elyoseph, Z., Hadar-Shoval, D., Asraf, K. & Lvovsky, M. Chatgpt outperforms humans in emotional awareness evaluations.Fron- tiers in psychology14, 1199058 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Schlegel, K., Sommer, N. R. & Mortillaro, M. Large language models are proficient in solving and creating emotional intelligence tests.Communications Psychology3, 80 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    W.et al.Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum.JAMA internal medicine183, 589–596 (2023)

    Ayers, J. W.et al.Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum.JAMA internal medicine183, 589–596 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Sorin, V.et al.Large language models and empathy: systematic review.Journal of medical Internet research26, e52597 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    & Nass, C

    Reeves, B. & Nass, C. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people.Cambridge, UK 10, 19–36 (1996)

    1996

  21. [21]

    & Cacioppo, J

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

    2007

  22. [22]

    Hurst, A.et al.Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Phang, J.et al.Investigating affective use and emotional well-being on chatgpt.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03888(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    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. Humanities and Social Sciences Communi- cations12, 1–9 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    & Sharot, T

    Glickman, M. & Sharot, T. How human– ai feedback loops alter human perceptual, emotional and social judgements.Nature Human Behaviour9, 345–359 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Demszky, D.et al.Goemotions: A dataset of fine-grained emotions.Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics4040–4054 (2020). 17

    2020

  27. [27]

    & Hovy, E

    Poria, S., Majumder, N., Mihalcea, R. & Hovy, E. Emotion recognition in conver- sation: Research challenges, datasets, and recent advances.IEEE Access7, 100943– 100953 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    & Carvalho, J

    Pereira, P., Moniz, H. & Carvalho, J. P. Deep emotion recognition in textual con- versations: a survey.Artificial Intelligence Review58(2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A

    Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M. & Pollak, S. D. Emo- tional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements.Psychological science in the public interest20, 1–68 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    D’mello, S. K. & Kory, J. A review and meta-analysis of multimodal affect detection systems.ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 47, 1–36 (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Feng, S.et al.Affect recognition in conver- sations using large language models.Pro- ceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue259–273 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Lian, Z.et al.Affectgpt: A new dataset, model, and benchmark for emotion under- standing with multimodal large language models.Proceedings of the 42nd Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Kang, D.et al.Can large language models be good emotional supporters? mitigating preference bias on emotional support con- versation.Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics15232–15261 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Liu, S.et al.Towards emotional support dia- log systems.Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Pro- cessing3469–3483 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    W., Miner, A

    Sharma, A., Lin, I. W., Miner, A. S., Atkins, D. C. & Althoff, T. Human–ai collabora- tion enables more empathic conversations in text-based peer-to-peer mental health sup- port.Nature Machine Intelligence5, 46–57 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Chen, D.et al.Patient perceptions of empathy in physician and artificial intelli- gence chatbot responses to patient questions about cancer.NPJ Digital Medicine8, 275 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Li, C.et al.Large language models under- stand and can be enhanced by emotional stimuli.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11760 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Wang, X., Li, C., Chang, Y., Wang, J. & Wu, Y. Negativeprompt: Leveraging psy- chology for large language models enhance- ment via negative emotional stimuli.Pro- ceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 6504–6512 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    & Sekine, S

    Yin, Z., Wang, H., Horio, K., Kawahara, D. & Sekine, S. Should we respect llms? a cross- lingual study on the influence of prompt politeness on llm performance.Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Social Influence in Conversations9–35 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    & Suh, B

    Kim, K., Jeon, H., Ryu, J. & Suh, B. Will llms sink or swim? exploring decision- making under pressure.Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 202411425–11450 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    & Suhr, A

    Sclar, M., Choi, Y., Tsvetkov, Y. & Suhr, A. Quantifying language models’ sensitivity to spurious features in prompt design or: How i learned to start worrying about prompt formatting.The Twelfth International Con- ference on Learning Representations(2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    & Jurgens, D

    Zheng, M., Pei, J., Logeswaran, L., Lee, M. & Jurgens, D. When a helpful assis- tant is not really helpful: Personas in system prompts do not improve performances of large language models.Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: 18 EMNLP 202415126–15154 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Deci- sion Making Workshop(2024)

    Ruan, Y.et al.Identifying the risks of lm agents with an lm-emulated sandbox. NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Deci- sion Making Workshop(2024)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Hua, W.et al.Trustagent: Towards safe and trustworthy llm-based agents.Findings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: EMNLP 202410000–10016 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Tseng, Y.-M.et al.Two tales of persona in llms: A survey of role-playing and person- alization.Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 16612–16631 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Jiang, H.et al.Personallm: Investigating the ability of large language models to express personality traits.Findings of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 20243605–3627 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Zhang, Z.et al.A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model-based agents.ACM Transactions on Information Systems43, 1–47 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Packer, C.et al.Memgpt: towards llms as operating systems. (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

    Bai, Y.et al.Constitutional ai: Harm- lessness from ai feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073(2022)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Glaese, A.et al.Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judge- ments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14375 (2022)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: ACL 202313387–13434 (2023)

    Perez, E.et al.Discovering language model behaviors with model-written evaluations. Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: ACL 202313387–13434 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Hoff, K. A. & Bashir, M. Trust in automa- tion: Integrating empirical evidence on fac- tors that influence trust.Human factors57, 407–434 (2015)

    2015

  53. [53]

    C., Davis, J

    Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. An integrative model of organizational trust.Academy of management review20, 709–734 (1995)

    1995

  54. [54]

    Klein, S. H. The effects of human-like social cues on social responses towards text-based conversational agents—a meta- analysis.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications12, 1–16 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    & Epley, N

    Waytz, A., Heafner, J. & Epley, N. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of experimental social psychology 52, 113–117 (2014)

    2014

  56. [56]

    J.et al.Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied22, 331 (2016)

    De Visser, E. J.et al.Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied22, 331 (2016)

    2016

  57. [57]

    & Schreck, P

    Klingbeil, A., Gr¨ utzner, C. & Schreck, P. Trust and reliance on ai—an experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on ai.Computers in Human Behavior160, 108352 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    S., Liao, Q

    Kim, S. S., Liao, Q. V., Vorvoreanu, M., Ballard, S. & Vaughan, J. W. I’m Not Sure, But...: Examining the impact of large language models’ uncertainty expression on user reliance and trust.Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency822–835 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    & Lee, Y.-C

    Xu, Z., Song, T. & Lee, Y.-C. Confronting verbalized uncertainty: Understanding how llm’s verbalized uncertainty influences users in ai-assisted decision-making.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies197, 103455 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Artificial empathy in healthcare chatbots: Does it feel authentic?Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2, 100067 (2024)

    Seitz, L. Artificial empathy in healthcare chatbots: Does it feel authentic?Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2, 100067 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    & Gadiraju, U

    He, G., Demartini, G. & Gadiraju, U. Plan- then-execute: An empirical study of user 19 trust and team performance when using llm agents as a daily assistant.Proceed- ings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems1–22 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B. & Wick- ens, C. D. A model for types and lev- els of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 30, 286–297 (2000)

    2000

  63. [63]

    Y., Wan, S

    Bo, J. Y., Wan, S. & Anderson, A. To rely or not to rely? evaluating interventions for appropriate reliance on large language mod- els.Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–23 (2025)

    2025

  64. [64]

    Lai, V.et al.Human-ai collaboration via conditional delegation: A case study of con- tent moderation.Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems1–18 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    Salikutluk, V.et al.An evaluation of situa- tional autonomy for human-ai collaboration in a shared workspace setting.Proceed- ings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems1–17 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    & Taddeo, M

    Tsamados, A., Floridi, L. & Taddeo, M. Human control of ai systems: from supervi- sion to teaming.AI and Ethics5, 1535–1548 (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    & Tauber, E

    Nass, C., Steuer, J. & Tauber, E. R. Com- puters are social actors.Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems72–78 (1994)

    1994

  68. [68]

    Why Language Models Hallucinate

    Kalai, A. T., Nachum, O., Vempala, S. S. & Zhang, E. Why language models hal- lucinate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04664 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V. & Bellamy, R. K. Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in ai-assisted decision making.Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency295–305 (2020)

    2020

  70. [70]

    S., Vaughan, J

    Kim, S. S., Vaughan, J. W., Liao, Q. V., Lombrozo, T. & Russakovsky, O. Fostering appropriate reliance on large language mod- els: The role of explanations, sources, and inconsistencies.Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems1–19 (2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    Sharma, N.et al.Feedback by design: Understanding and overcoming user feed- back barriers in conversational agents.Pro- ceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems1–22 (2026)

    2026

  72. [72]

    sorry, it was my fault

    Zhang, X., Lee, S. K., Kim, W. & Hahn, S. “sorry, it was my fault”: Repairing trust in human-robot interactions.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies175, 103031 (2023)

    2023

  73. [73]

    Srikumar, M.et al.Prioritizing real-time failure detection in ai agents.Partnership on AI(2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    & Shang, S

    Xu, W., Huang, C., Gao, S. & Shang, S. Llm-based agents for tool learning: A survey: W. xu et al.Data Science and Engineering1–31 (2025)

    2025

  75. [75]

    & Wakslak, C

    Yin, Y., Jia, N. & Wakslak, C. J. Ai can help people feel heard, but an ai label diminishes this impact.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2319112121 (2024)

    2024

  76. [77]

    How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study

    Fang, C. M.et al.How ai and human behaviors shape psychosocial effects of extended chatbot use: A longitudinal ran- domized controlled study.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17473(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [78]

    & Barco, A

    K¨ uhne, R., Peter, J., de Jong, C. & Barco, A. How does children’s anthropomorphism of a social robot develop over time? a six- wave panel study.International Journal of 20 Social Robotics16, 1665–1679 (2024)

    2024

  78. [79]

    & Todorovic, M

    Pu, L., Moyle, W., Jones, C. & Todorovic, M. The effectiveness of social robots for older adults: a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized controlled studies. The gerontologist59, e37–e51 (2019)

    2019

  79. [80]

    Berridge, C., Zhou, Y., Robillard, J. M. & Kaye, J. Companion robots to mitigate lone- liness among older adults: Perceptions of benefit and possible deception.Frontiers in Psychology14, 1106633 (2023)

    2023

  80. [81]

    & West, J

    Peter, S., Riemer, K. & West, J. D. The benefits and dangers of anthropomor- phic conversational agents.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2415898122 (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.