Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 112 references

Social Media Clones: Exploring the Impact of Social Delegation with AI Clones through a Design Workbook Study

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Social media users would adopt the behavior of their AI clones to avoid discrepancies, according to this interview-based study.

desk verdict Solid exploratory HCI study with a real design-space contribution, but the abstract's behavioral claim ('users tend to behave more like their clones') outruns the evidence: this is anticipated, self-reported reaction, not observed behavior. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07502 v1 pith:AE36TQLU submitted 2025-09-09 cs.HC

Jackie Liu , Mehrnoosh Sadat Shirvani , Hwajung Hong , Ig-Jae Kim , Dongwook Yoon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords socialmediaclonesAI-mediatedcommunicationimpressionmanagementidentitygapsdesignworkbookauthenticitycontextcollapsehuman-AIinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper investigates what happens when AI clones—chatbots trained on a person's social media data—act on that person's behalf. Based on interviews with 32 social media users who reviewed eight speculative clone concepts, it argues that clones offer real convenience and comfort but threaten authenticity and breed skepticism among readers. Its sharpest claim is that users respond by changing their own behavior to match the clone, adopting its tone and habits to avoid visible discrepancies. The paper calls the person being cloned the Target and the person interacting with the clone the Interactor, and finds that these two roles have different, often clashing, priorities: Targets want efficiency and control, while Interactors want authenticity and accuracy. This matters because if true, clones do not just add a helper—they feed back into how people present themselves, manage relationships, and trust the platform.

What carries the argument

The study's apparatus is the design workbook paired with the Target/Interactor distinction. The paper defines social media clones as AI agents built on a Target's data, generative in responding as the Target would, and interactive through the platform's affordances. The theoretical engine is the identity-gap idea: when the clone's enacted behavior clashes with the user's personal or relational identity, the user experiences tension and often resolves it by adjusting their own behavior toward the clone. On the audience side, impression transfer—the tendency to attribute a clone's traits to the person it represents—carries the argument, with familiarity and attitude toward AI determining how r

What would settle it

A field experiment in which social media users gain access to a clone trained on their own messages for several weeks, with their writing style measured before and during use: if users do not measurably shift their language toward the clone when the clone's output diverges (instead correcting or disabling it), the paper's central behavioral claim would be undercut. A second test: if awareness that clones exist fails to increase skepticism toward non-clone posts, the authenticity-risk claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that social media clones create a feedback loop: a clone trained on a user's data will inevitably deviate from the user, and the user's social audience can notice. To reduce friction, the user tends to become more like the clone, reshaping their enacted identity. Evidence comes from a three-phase interview study: 14 Targets first reviewed a design workbook of eight clone concepts (interactive profile, cross-media posting, clone housekeeping, personalized reachout, undercover rejection, post-completion for trending topics, mood modifier, and group-convo simulation); six of those Targets then recruited 18 Interactors, who reviewed personalized ver

Load-bearing premise

The study's forecast that people would actually start acting more like their clones rests on how participants reacted to illustrated concepts and short, variable-fidelity chatbot conversations, not on long-term use; the paper itself notes the clone chatbots varied in believability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If users behave more like their clones, sustained clone use could flatten identity: the clone condenses the user's multilayered self into a single enacted dimension, and the user then conforms to that dimension, reducing the richness of their online persona.
  • Clones likely fit task-oriented, low-stakes settings (for example, professional networking) better than close-relationship spaces, because Interactors value perceived effort and authenticity most where emotional connection is expected.
  • Clone design should make clones functionally independent but sentimentally dependent: able to act autonomously within a context but never inventing new opinions or feelings for the user.
  • Disclosure of clone use cannot be uniformly 'on' or 'off': hiding the clone boosts its effectiveness but amplifies impression transfer and distrust, while disclosing it protects Interactors but can stigmatize Targets.
  • Prolonged clone use may increase the number of weak ties users maintain while straining close ties, since Interactors perceive delegation as low effort and may feel undervalued despite receiving more engagement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The mimicry finding implies a measurable 'clone drift' effect—over months, a user's vocabulary, tone, and interaction patterns would converge toward their clone's output. A longitudinal corpus study comparing users' own messages before and after clone adoption could test this directly.
  • Inference: The skepticism finding suggests a public-good problem that extends beyond clone users: awareness that clones exist may lower trust in all posts on a platform, so even non-users bear a cost. The paper contains a participant comment to this effect but does not develop the platform-level consequence.
  • Inference: The Target/Interactor asymmetry implies that clone governance needs role-dependent policies rather than a single transparency standard; what protects Interactors (mandatory disclosure) may undermine the very convenience Targets seek, and vice versa.
  • Inference: The context-collapse findings suggest clones should be trained on audience-segmented data rather than a single undifferentiated message history; this is a testable engineering modification with current language models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a three-phase interview study exploring how AI clones—generative, data-built agents representing a user (the Target)—might affect social media behavior and relationships. Using a design workbook with eight clone concepts, the authors interviewed 14 Targets, 18 Interactors (friends recruited by six Targets), and six Targets again in a follow-up phase. A lightweight GPT-4 clone chatbot was built for each of the six Targets, and Interactors conversed with it for five minutes; Targets later reviewed the chat logs. Thematic analysis of 38 transcripts yielded findings organized around three areas: trade-offs between convenience and authenticity/agency, challenges to Target identity and impression management, and impression-transfer mechanisms and breakdown responses. The paper proposes design considerations for clone roles, use cases, and disclosure.

Significance. If the findings hold, the study is a timely empirical contribution to an understudied area: user and interactor perceptions of AI clones on social media. It extends AI-mediated communication and impression-management theory into a speculative but rapidly emerging domain, and it offers concrete design considerations (e.g., sentimentally dependent but functionally independent clones, task-oriented versus social interactions, disclosure trade-offs). The study has notable strengths: it uses a design workbook grounded in prior theory, includes a real (if minimal) chatbot interaction, provides transparent appendices with the interview protocol and chatbot prompt, and samples across three platforms with distinct relationship norms. The main weakness is that the central behavioral claim in the abstract goes beyond what the study design can support, since all evidence of behavioral change is self-reported and anticipatory rather than observed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4.2.1, §5.1.2, §6] The abstract states 'As a result users tend to behave more like their clones to mitigate discrepancies and interaction breakdowns.' This is presented as an empirical behavioral finding. The study, however, measured participants' stated beliefs and anticipated strategies, not behavior. Appendix C Phase 1 Q14 asks Targets directly whether they think they would behave more like their clone, and Phase 3 Q3 asks whether they 'feel like' they would continue with the same level of energy; these are self-predictions. §3.4 shows that only Interactors had actual interaction with the clone (a five-minute chatbot conversation); Targets only reviewed chat logs and never interacted with their own clone or with Interactors afterward. §5.4 further acknowledges that clone believability varied and that the chatbots were minimally viable. The data support claims about anticipated impression-management stra
  2. [§4.2.1] The quote attributed to 'I4' describes a Target's internal conflict ('keep the same level of interaction with [the Interactor]' and 'trying to be like [my] clone to come off more streamlined'). According to Table 3, I4 is an Interactor, not a Target. If this is a Target's voice, the participant label is wrong; if it is genuinely an Interactor's voice, then the passage does not support the claim about Targets' behavior. This misattribution sits inside the section that carries the paper's central behavioral claim and should be corrected before publication.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.2] 'TI4' appears to be a typo for 'T4' or possibly 'I4'; please verify the correct participant identifier. Similar label inconsistencies should be checked throughout the findings.
  2. [Table B2 / Table 1] The concept name is spelled 'Mood Modifier' in Table 1 and the main text but 'Mood Modifer' in Table B2; please harmonize.
  3. [§5.1.1] 'It is therefor important' should be 'therefore.'
  4. [Appendix C, Phase 2 Q14] 'Do you value the AI interaction in of itself?' has a grammatical error; should be 'in and of itself.'
  5. [§5.3.3] 'Concepts like Personalized Reachout or Undercover Rejectionsdepend largely...' is missing a space; the sentence is otherwise clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical interview findings are independent of the cited theories and prior work; the self-citation to Lee et al. is contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than mathematical: it presents speculative design concepts, collects qualitative interview data from 32 participants across three phases, and reports themes from reflexive thematic analysis. The central claims—convenience/comfort vs. authenticity/skepticism, impression management strategies, and breakdown responses—are supported by participant quotes and interviewer observations, not derived from the cited theories. Theories such as the communication theory of identity and AI-mediated communication are used as interpretive lenses after the fact, which does not make the findings circular. The only self-citation with overlapping authors is Lee et al. (2023) [51], used to define AI clones and introduce concepts like doppelgänger-phobia and identity fragmentation; that prior work is background and is not the evidence for the paper's empirical findings. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The abstract's phrasing 'users tend to behave more like their clones' is based primarily on participants' stated intentions (Appendix C Q14 and Phase 3 Q3) rather than observed behavior, and Section 5.4 candidly notes that 'the believability of the clones varied based on the quality of training data.' Those are validity and generalization limitations, not circular reasoning. The paper also explicitly acknowledges its speculative, exploratory design, which further confirms that the 'predictions' are anticipated perceptions rather than results forced by the study's definitions or by self-citation. Consequently, no circular step meeting the required evidential standard can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative interview study, so there are no fitted numeric parameters or invented entities. The load-bearing assumptions are domain-level: that hypothetical workbook responses and short chatbot interactions are informative about real clone use, and that thematic saturation was achieved.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Participants' stated reactions to speculative design concepts and a brief chatbot interaction are a valid proxy for real-world responses to long-term clone use.
    The study draws behavioral conclusions ('users tend to behave more like their clones') from interview data about hypothetical concepts; Sections 3.1 and 3.4 rely on this to generalize.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 clone chatbots built from 100 provided messages sufficiently represent the Target to elicit realistic impressions and breakdowns.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.4 describe the chatbot creation; Section 5.4 acknowledges variable believability, making this assumption load-bearing for phase 2 and 3 findings.
  • domain assumption Thematic saturation was reached, so the 38 interviews cover the range of relevant experiences.
    Section 3.5 asserts saturation after the last batch but provides no saturation assessment; this underlies the completeness of the reported themes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Social Media Clones: Exploring the Impact of Social Delegation with AI Clones through a Design Workbook Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AE36TQLU

@misc{pith2026250907502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Social Media Clones: Exploring the Impact of Social Delegation with AI Clones through a Design Workbook Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AE36TQLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07502}
}
read the original abstract

Social media clones are AI-powered social delegates of ourselves created using our personal data. As our identities and online personas intertwine, these technologies have the potential to greatly enhance our social media experience. If mismanaged, however, these clones may also pose new risks to our social reputation and online relationships. To set the foundation for a productive and responsible integration, we set out to understand how social media clones will impact our online behavior and interactions. We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews introducing eight speculative clone concepts to 32 social media users through a design workbook. Applying existing work in AI-mediated communication in the context of social media, we found that although clones can offer convenience and comfort, they can also threaten the user's authenticity and increase skepticism within the online community. As a result, users tend to behave more like their clones to mitigate discrepancies and interaction breakdowns. These findings are discussed through the lens of past literature in identity and impression management to highlight challenges in the adoption of social media clones by the general public, and propose design considerations for their successful integration into social media platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07502 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the 3 study phases designed to iteratively develop the design workbook and illicit Target and Interactor reactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example pages of the design workbook used in phase 1 interviews [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In Zizi Papacharissi, editor,A Networked Self, pages 47–66

    Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Zizi Papacharissi, editor,A Networked Self, pages 47–66. Routledge, 0 edition, September 2010. ISBN 978-0-203-87652-7. doi: 10.4324/9780203876527-8. URL https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/ 9781135966164/chapters/10.4324/9780203876527-8

    doi:10.4324/9780203876527-8 2010

  2. [2]

    Stacy Adams

    J. Stacy Adams. Towards an understanding of inequity.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5):422–436, November 1963. ISSN 0096-851X. doi: 10.1037/h0040968. URL https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0040968

    work page doi:10.1037/h0040968 1963

  3. [3]

    Thomas Aichner, Matthias Grünfelder, Oswin Maurer, and Deni Jegeni. Twenty-Five Years of Social Media: A Review of Social Media Applications and Definitions from 1994 to 2019.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(4):215–222, April 2021. ISSN 2152-2715, 2152-2723. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0134. URL https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/cyber...

    arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    Data Agency Theory: A Precise Theory of Justice for AI Applications

    Leah Ajmani, Logan Stapleton, Mo Houtti, and Stevie Chancellor. Data Agency Theory: A Precise Theory of Justice for AI Applications. InThe 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 631–641, Rio de Janeiro Brazil, June 2024. ACM. ISBN 9798400704505. doi: 10.1145/3630106.3658930. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658930

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Availability of Voice Deepfake Technology and its Impact for Good and Evil

    Naroa Amezaga and Jeremy Hajek. Availability of Voice Deepfake Technology and its Impact for Good and Evil. InProceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, pages 23–28, Chicago IL USA, September 2022. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-9391-1. doi: 10.1145/3537674.3554742. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3537674.3554742

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Almost human? A comparative case study on the social media presence of virtual influencers.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 155:102694, November 2021

    Jbid Arsenyan and Agata Mirowska. Almost human? A comparative case study on the social media presence of virtual influencers.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 155:102694, November 2021. ISSN 10715819. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102694. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S1071581921001129

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Baccarella, Timm F

    Christian V. Baccarella, Timm F. Wagner, Jan H. Kietzmann, and Ian P. McCarthy. Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media.European Management Journal, 36(4):431–438, August 2018. ISSN 02632373. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2018.07.002. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0263237318300781

    work page doi:10.1016/j.emj.2018.07.002 2018

  8. [8]

    Bailenson and Kathryn Y

    Jeremy N. Bailenson and Kathryn Y. Segovia. Virtual Doppelgangers: Psychological Effects of Avatars Who Ignore Their Owners. In William Sims Bainbridge, editor,Online Worlds: Convergence of the Real and the Virtual, pages 175–186. Springer London, London, 2010. ISBN 978-1-84882-824-7 978-1-84882-825-4. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84882-825-4_14. URL http://link.sp...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-825-4_14 2010

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory

    Albert Bandura.Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, 1986. ISBN 978-0-13-815614-5

    1986

  2. [10]

    Bayer, Penny Trieu, and Nicole B

    Joseph B. Bayer, Penny Trieu, and Nicole B. Ellison. Social Media Elements, Ecologies, and Effects.Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1):471–497, January 2020. ISSN 0066-4308, 1545-2085. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944. URL https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annur...

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    From AI dating to flirt coaches: How AI is changing dating, for better or worse.CBC, March 2024

    Britnei Bilhete. From AI dating to flirt coaches: How AI is changing dating, for better or worse.CBC, March 2024. URL https://www.cbc.ca/news/ canada/artificial-intelligence-relationships-1.7148866

    2024

  4. [12]

    Customization in mobile health apps: explaining effects on physical activity intentions by the need for autonomy.DIGITAL HEALTH, 5:2055207619888074, January 2019

    Nadine Bol, Nina Margareta Høie, Minh Hao Nguyen, and Eline Suzanne Smit. Customization in mobile health apps: explaining effects on physical activity intentions by the need for autonomy.DIGITAL HEALTH, 5:2055207619888074, January 2019. ISSN 2055-2076, 2055-2076. doi: 10.1177/...

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Why People Use Social Networking Sites

    Petter Bae Brandtzæg and Jan Heim. Why People Use Social Networking Sites. In A. Ant Ozok and Panayiotis Zaphiris, editors,Online Communities and Social Computing, volume 5621, pages 143–152. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. ISBN 978-3-642-02773-4 978-3-64...

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2):77–101, January 2006

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2):77–101, January 2006. ISSN 1478-0887, 1478-0895. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    The Affordances of Social Media Platforms

    Taina Bucher and Anne Helmond. The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. InThe SAGE Handbook of Social Media, pages 233–253. SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP, 2018. ISBN 978-1-4129-6229-2 978-1-4739-8406-6. doi: 10.4135/9781473984066.n14. U...

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality.Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(2):74–78, February

    Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal. Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality.Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(2):74–78, February

  9. [17]

    Understanding the Relationship between Adoption and Value Creation on Online Social Networks

    Suparna Dhar, Indranil Bose, and Jose Benitez. Understanding the Relationship between Adoption and Value Creation on Online Social Networks. Information Systems Frontiers, May 2023. ISSN 1387-3326, 1572-9419. doi: 10.1007/s10796-023-10398-2. URL https://link.springer.com/10.10...

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Digital Twins: The Convergence of Multimedia Technologies.IEEE MultiMedia, 25(2):87–92, April 2018

    Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. Digital Twins: The Convergence of Multimedia Technologies.IEEE MultiMedia, 25(2):87–92, April 2018. ISSN 1070-986X, 1941-0166. doi: 10.1109/MMUL.2018.023121167. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8424832/

    2018

  11. [19]

    Ellison and Jessica Vitak

    Nicole B. Ellison and Jessica Vitak. Social Network Site Affordances and Their Relationship to Social Capital Processes. In S. Shyam Sundar, editor,The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, pages 203–227. Wiley, 1 edition, January 2015. ISBN 978-1-118-41336-4...

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Social Exchange Theory.Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1):335–362, August 1976

    R M Emerson. Social Exchange Theory.Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1):335–362, August 1976. ISSN 0360-0572, 1545-2115. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so. 02.080176.002003. URL https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003. Exploring Social Media Clones 23

    1976

  13. [21]

    Camille G Endacott and Paul M Leonardi. Artificial Intelligence and Impression Management: Consequences of Autonomous Conversational Agents Communicating on One’s Behalf.Human Communication Research, 48(3):462–490, June 2022. ISSN 0360-3989, 1468-2958. doi: 10.1093/hcr/hqac009...

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Funder and C

    David C. Funder and C. Randall Colvin. Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1):149–158, 1988. ISSN 1939-1315, 0022-3514. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.149. URL https://doi.ap...

    1988 doi

  15. [23]

    Making spaces: how design workbooks work

    William Gaver. Making spaces: how design workbooks work. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1551–1560, Vancouver BC Canada, May 2011. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-0228-9. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979169. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10. 1145...

    2011

  16. [24]

    Perceptions and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence: A Multi-Dimensional Study.Social Sciences, 12(9):502, September 2023

    Michael Gerlich. Perceptions and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence: A Multi-Dimensional Study.Social Sciences, 12(9):502, September 2023. ISSN 2076-0760. doi: 10.3390/socsci12090502. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/9/502

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Anchor Books, New York, 1

    Erving Goffman.The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books, New York, 1. anchor books ed., rev. ed edition, 1990. ISBN 978-0-385-09402-3

    1990

  18. [26]

    AI-Mediated Communication: Definition, Research Agenda, and Ethical Considerations.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1):89–100, March 2020

    Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. AI-Mediated Communication: Definition, Research Agenda, and Ethical Considerations.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1):89–100, March 2020. ISSN 1083-6101. doi: 10.1093/jcmc/zmz022. URL https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/ ...

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Yuji Hatada, Shigeo Yoshida, Takuji Narumi, and Michitaka Hirose. Double Shellf: What Psychological Effects can be Caused through Interaction with a Doppelganger? InProceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019, pages 1–8, Reims France, March 2019. ACM....

    2019

  20. [28]

    How Chinese influencers use AI digital clones of themselves to pump out content.The Guardian, November 2023

    Amy Hawkins. How Chinese influencers use AI digital clones of themselves to pump out content.The Guardian, November 2023. URL https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/06/chinese-influencers-using-ai-digital-clones-of-themselves

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hecht and Kaitlin E

    Michael L. Hecht and Kaitlin E. Phillips. Communication Theory of Identity. InEngaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication, pages 221–232. Routledge, New York, 3 edition, September 2021. ISBN 978-1-00-319551-1. doi: 10.4324/9781003195511-20. URL https://www.taylorfrancis.c...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Perceiving the other person

    Fritz Heider. Perceiving the other person. InThe psychology of interpersonal relations., pages 20–58. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, 1958. doi: 10.1037/10628-002. URL https://content.apa.org/books/10628-002

    1958 doi

  23. [31]

    Hoffner and Bradley J

    Cynthia A. Hoffner and Bradley J. Bond. Parasocial relationships, social media, & well-being.Current Opinion in Psychology, 45:101306, June 2022. ISSN 2352250X. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101306. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352250X22000082

    2022

  24. [32]

    AI-Supported Messaging: An Investigation of Human-Human Text Conversation with AI Support

    Jess Hohenstein and Malte Jung. AI-Supported Messaging: An Investigation of Human-Human Text Conversation with AI Support. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–6, Montreal QC Canada, April 2018. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503- 56...

    2018

  25. [33]

    AI as a moral crumple zone: The effects of AI-mediated communication on attribution and trust.Computers in Human Behavior, 106:106190, May 2020

    Jess Hohenstein and Malte Jung. AI as a moral crumple zone: The effects of AI-mediated communication on attribution and trust.Computers in Human Behavior, 106:106190, May 2020. ISSN 07475632. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106190. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S074...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Kizilcec, Dominic DiFranzo, Zhila Aghajari, Hannah Mieczkowski, Karen Levy, Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Hancock, and Malte F

    Jess Hohenstein, Rene F. Kizilcec, Dominic DiFranzo, Zhila Aghajari, Hannah Mieczkowski, Karen Levy, Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Hancock, and Malte F. Jung. Artificial intelligence in communication impacts language and social relationships.Scientific Reports, 13(1):5487, April 2023. I...

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    The effect of online social value on satisfaction and continued use of social media.European Journal of Information Systems, 24(4):391–410, July 2015

    Tao Hu, William J Kettinger, and Robin S Poston. The effect of online social value on satisfaction and continued use of social media.European Journal of Information Systems, 24(4):391–410, July 2015. ISSN 0960-085X, 1476-9344. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2014.22. URL https://www.tandfon...

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Shiyuan Huang, Siddarth Mamidanna, Shreedhar Jangam, Yilun Zhou, and Leilani H. Gilpin. Can Large Language Models Explain Themselves? A Study of LLM-Generated Self-Explanations, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11207. Version Number: 1

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    In Whose Voice?: Examining AI Agent Representation of People in Social Interaction through Generative Speech

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, John Oliver Siy, Renee Shelby, and Alison Lentz. In Whose Voice?: Examining AI Agent Representation of People in Social Interaction through Generative Speech. InDesigning Interactive Systems Conference, pages 224–245, IT University of Copenhagen Denmark,...

    2024

  30. [38]

    What is My AI on Snapchat and how do I use it?, 2023

    Snap Inc. What is My AI on Snapchat and how do I use it?, 2023. URL https://help.snapchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/13266788358932-What-is-My- AI-on-Snapchat-and-how-do-I-use-it

    2023

  31. [39]

    Hancock, and Mor Naaman

    Maurice Jakesch, Megan French, Xiao Ma, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Mor Naaman. AI-Mediated Communication: How the Perception that Profile Text was Written by AI Affects Trustworthiness. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–13, Gl...

    2019

  32. [40]

    Eura Jung and Michael L. Hecht. Identity Gaps and Level of Depression Among Korean Immigrants.Health Communication, 23(4):313–325, August

  33. [41]

    Talking in circles: selective sharing in google+

    Sanjay Kairam, Mike Brzozowski, David Huffaker, and Ed Chi. Talking in circles: selective sharing in google+. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1065–1074, Austin Texas USA, May 2012. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-1015-4. doi: 10.1145/22...

    2012

  34. [42]

    Exploring Virtual Reality and Doppelganger Avatars for the Treatment of Chronic Back Pain

    Kornelius Immanuel Kammler-Sücker. Exploring Virtual Reality and Doppelganger Avatars for the Treatment of Chronic Back Pain. 2023. doi: 10.11588/HEIDOK.00032996. URL https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/id/eprint/32996. Publisher: Heidelberg University Library. ...

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Hyunjin Kang and Ki Joon Kim. Feeling connected to smart objects? A moderated mediation model of locus of agency, anthropomorphism, and sense of connectedness.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 133:45–55, January 2020. ISSN 10715819. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.09....

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    AI agency vs

    Hyunjin Kang and Chen Lou. AI agency vs. human agency: understanding human–AI interactions on TikTok and their implications for user engagement.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(5):zmac014, August 2022. ISSN 1083-6101. doi: 10.1093/jcmc/zmac014. URL https://academ...

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Artificial Intelligence in Digital Media: The Era of Deepfakes.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(3):138–147, September 2020

    Stamatis Karnouskos. Artificial Intelligence in Digital Media: The Era of Deepfakes.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(3):138–147, September 2020. ISSN 2637-6415. doi: 10.1109/TTS.2020.3001312. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9123958/

    2020

  38. [46]

    AI as a friend or assistant: The mediating role of perceived usefulness in social AI vs

    Jihyun Kim, Kelly Merrill Jr., and Chad Collins. AI as a friend or assistant: The mediating role of perceived usefulness in social AI vs. functional AI. Telematics and Informatics, 64:101694, November 2021. ISSN 07365853. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101694. URL https://linkinghub...

    2021

  39. [47]

    Molina, Minjin (Mj) Rheu, Emily S

    Taenyun Kim, Maria D. Molina, Minjin (Mj) Rheu, Emily S. Zhan, and Wei Peng. One AI Does Not Fit All: A Cluster Analysis of the Laypeople’s Perception of AI Roles. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–20, Hamburg Germany, April

    2023

  40. [48]

    Yoojung Kim, Dongyoung Sohn, and Sejung Marina Choi. Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students.Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1):365–372, January 2011. ISSN 07475632. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010....

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    Kleinlogel, Marion Curdy, João Rodrigues, Carmen Sandi, and Marianne Schmid Mast

    Emmanuelle P. Kleinlogel, Marion Curdy, João Rodrigues, Carmen Sandi, and Marianne Schmid Mast. Doppelganger-based training: Imitating our virtual self to accelerate interpersonal skills learning.PLOS ONE, 16(2):e0245960, February 2021. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pon...

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Trust paradox

    Sarah Kreps, Julie George, Paul Lushenko, and Adi Rao. Exploring the artificial intelligence “Trust paradox”: Evidence from a survey experiment in the United States.PLOS ONE, 18(7):e0288109, July 2023. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288109. URL https://dx.plos.org/...

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Ma, Ig-Jae Kim, and Dongwook Yoon

    Patrick Yung Kang Lee, Ning F. Ma, Ig-Jae Kim, and Dongwook Yoon. Speculating on Risks of AI Clones to Selfhood and Relationships: Doppelganger- phobia, Identity Fragmentation, and Living Memories.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1):1–28, April 2023....

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Jiahao Li, Yang Chu, and Jie Xu. Impression transference from AI to human: The impact of AI’s fairness on interpersonal perception in AI-Mediated communication.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 179:103119, November 2023. ISSN 10715819. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023....

    2023

  45. [53]

    Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Self-adaptive Systems, 2024

    Jialong Li, Mingyue Zhang, Nianyu Li, Danny Weyns, Zhi Jin, and Kenji Tei. Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Self-adaptive Systems, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07534. Version Number: 1

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Will AI Console Me when I Lose my Pet? Understanding Perceptions of AI-Mediated Email Writing

    Yihe Liu, Anushk Mittal, Diyi Yang, and Amy Bruckman. Will AI Console Me when I Lose my Pet? Understanding Perceptions of AI-Mediated Email Writing. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–13, New Orleans LA USA, April 2022. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-9157-3....

    2022

  47. [55]

    Marwick and Danah Boyd

    Alice E. Marwick and Danah Boyd. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience.New Media & Society, 13(1):114–133, February 2011. ISSN 1461-4448, 1461-7315. doi: 10.1177/1461444810365313. URL http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/...

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    Mimetic Models: Ethical Implications of AI that Acts Like You

    Reid McIlroy-Young, Jon Kleinberg, Siddhartha Sen, Solon Barocas, and Ashton Anderson. Mimetic Models: Ethical Implications of AI that Acts Like You. InProceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 479–490, Oxford United Kingdom, July 2022. ACM....

    2022

  49. [57]

    Introducing New AI Experiences Across Our Family of Apps and Devices, September 2023

    Meta. Introducing New AI Experiences Across Our Family of Apps and Devices, September 2023. URL https://about.fb.com/news/2023/09/introducing- ai-powered-assistants-characters-and-creative-tools/

    2023

  50. [58]

    Hancock, Mor Naaman, Malte Jung, and Jess Hohenstein

    Hannah Mieczkowski, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Mor Naaman, Malte Jung, and Jess Hohenstein. AI-Mediated Communication: Language Use and Interpersonal Effects in a Referential Communication Task.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1):1–14, April 2021. ISSN 2573...

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Brubaker

    Meredith Ringel Morris and Jed R. Brubaker. Generative Ghosts: Anticipating Benefits and Risks of AI Afterlives, May 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2402.01662. arXiv:2402.01662 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mekhail Mustak, Joni Salminen, Matti Mäntymäki, Arafat Rahman, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. Deepfakes: Deceptions, mitigations, and opportunities. Journal of Business Research, 154:113368, January 2023. ISSN 01482963. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113368. URL https://linkinghub.elsevi...

    2023

  53. [61]

    Meta moves on from its celebrity lookalike AI chatbots.The Verge, 2024

    Jay Peters. Meta moves on from its celebrity lookalike AI chatbots.The Verge, 2024. URL https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/30/24209918/meta- celebrity-lookalike-ai-chatbots-moves-on

    2024

  54. [62]

    Friends’ and Acquaintances’ Conversations I: Perceived Differences.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(4):483–506, November 1992

    Sally Planalp and Anne Benson. Friends’ and Acquaintances’ Conversations I: Perceived Differences.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(4):483–506, November 1992. ISSN 0265-4075, 1460-3608. doi: 10.1177/0265407592094002. URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ ...

    1992 doi

  55. [63]

    Loes Pouwels, Patti M

    J. Loes Pouwels, Patti M. Valkenburg, Ine Beyens, Irene I. Van Driel, and Loes Keijsers. Social media use and friendship closeness in adolescents’ daily lives: An experience sampling study.Developmental Psychology, 57(2):309–323, February 2021. ISSN 1939-0599, 0012-1649. doi: ...

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Increasing Threat of Deepfake Identities, 2021

    Public-Private Analysis Exchange Program. Increasing Threat of Deepfake Identities, 2021. URL https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ increasing_threats_of_deepfake_identities_0.pdf

    2021

  57. [65]

    Purcell, Mengchen Dong, Anne-Marie Nussberger, Nils Köbis, and Maurice Jakesch

    Zoe A. Purcell, Mengchen Dong, Anne-Marie Nussberger, Nils Köbis, and Maurice Jakesch. Fears about AI-mediated communication are grounded in different expectations for one’s own versus others’ use, May 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01670. arXiv:2305.01670 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Hacking the social life of Big Data.Big Data & Society, 2(2):2053951715616649, December 2015

    Jennifer Pybus, Mark Coté, and Tobias Blanke. Hacking the social life of Big Data.Big Data & Society, 2(2):2053951715616649, December 2015. ISSN 2053-9517, 2053-9517. doi: 10.1177/2053951715616649. URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951715616649

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    Rothman.The right of publicity: privacy reimagined for a public world

    Jennifer E. Rothman.The right of publicity: privacy reimagined for a public world. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2018. ISBN 978-0-674-98098-3

    2018

  60. [68]

    Matthew N. O. Sadiku, Tolulope J. Ashaolu, Abayomi Ajayi-Majebi, and Sarhan M. Musa. Artificial Intelligence in Social Media.International Journal Of Scientific Advances, 2(1), 2021. ISSN 2708-7972. doi: 10.51542/ijscia.v2i1.4. URL https://www.ijscia.com/?p=1906

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Convergence of artificial intelligence with social media: A bibliometric & qualitative analysis

    Tahereh Saheb, Mouwafac Sidaoui, and Bill Schmarzo. Convergence of artificial intelligence with social media: A bibliometric & qualitative analysis. Telematics and Informatics Reports, 14:100146, June 2024. ISSN 27725030. doi: 10.1016/j.teler.2024.100146. URL https://linkinghu...

    2024

  62. [70]

    Social Engineering Attacks: A Survey.Future Internet, 11(4):89, April 2019

    Fatima Salahdine and Naima Kaabouch. Social Engineering Attacks: A Survey.Future Internet, 11(4):89, April 2019. ISSN 1999-5903. doi: 10.3390/fi11040089. URL https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/4/89

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    Joseph Seering, Felicia Ng, Zheng Yao, and Geoff Kaufman. Applications of Social Identity Theory to Research and Design in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW):1–34, November 2018. ISSN 2573-0142. doi: 10.1145/327477...

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    Digital Doppelgangers: Instagram Tests Creator-Made AI Clones.Forbes, July 2024

    Ian Shepherd. Digital Doppelgangers: Instagram Tests Creator-Made AI Clones.Forbes, July 2024. URL https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianshepherd/ 2024/07/08/digital-doppelgangers-instagram-tests-creator-made-

    2024

  65. [73]

    Friendship Maintenance in the Digital Age: Applying a Relational Lens to Online Social Interaction

    Irina Shklovski, Louise Barkhuus, Nis Bornoe, and Joseph ’Jofish’ Kaye. Friendship Maintenance in the Digital Age: Applying a Relational Lens to Online Social Interaction. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pages...

    2015

  66. [74]

    Implications & Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Media: With Special Focus on Social Media Marketing.E3S Web of Conferences, 399:07006, 2023

    Preeti Singh, Amit Verma, Sanjna Vij, and Jyotsana Thakur. Implications & Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Media: With Special Focus on Social Media Marketing.E3S Web of Conferences, 399:07006, 2023. ISSN 2267-1242. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202339907006. URL https://ww...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Helping Recruiters Save Time and Increase Candidate Engagement with AI, 2023

    Hari Srinivasan. Helping Recruiters Save Time and Increase Candidate Engagement with AI, 2023

    2023

  68. [76]

    Lee Taber, Sonia Dominguez, and Steve Whittaker. Ignore the Affordances; It’s the Social Norms: How Millennials and Gen-Z Think About Where to Make a Post on Social Media.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2):1–26, September 2023. ISSN 2573-0142. doi: ...

    2023 doi

  69. [77]

    Social identity and intergroup behaviour.Social Science Information, 13(2):65–93, April 1974

    Henri Tajfel. Social identity and intergroup behaviour.Social Science Information, 13(2):65–93, April 1974. ISSN 0539-0184, 1461-7412. doi: 10.1177/053901847401300204. URL http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/053901847401300204

    1974 doi

  70. [78]

    Zari A. Taylor. Everyone Stop What You’re Doing and BeReal: Live Networked Publics and Authenticity on BeReal.Social Media + Society, 9(4): 20563051231216959, October 2023. ISSN 2056-3051, 2056-3051. doi: 10.1177/20563051231216959. URL http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ ...

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    Snapchat influencer launches an AI-powered ’virtual girlfriend’ to help ’cure loneliness’.NBC News, May 2023

    Daysia Tolentino. Snapchat influencer launches an AI-powered ’virtual girlfriend’ to help ’cure loneliness’.NBC News, May 2023. URL https: //www.nbcnews.com/tech/ai-powered-virtual-girlfriend-caryn-marjorie-snapchat-influencer-rcna84180

    2023

  72. [80]

    Treem and Paul M

    Jeffrey W. Treem and Paul M. Leonardi. Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association.SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012. ISSN 1556-5068. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2129853. URL http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2129853

    2012 doi

  73. [81]

    Human digital thought clones: theHoly Grailof artificial intelligence for big data.Information & Communications Technology Law, 30(2):140–168, May 2021

    Jon Truby and Rafael Brown. Human digital thought clones: theHoly Grailof artificial intelligence for big data.Information & Communications Technology Law, 30(2):140–168, May 2021. ISSN 1360-0834, 1469-8404. doi: 10.1080/13600834.2020.1850174. URL https://www.tandfonline.com/d...

    2021

  74. [82]

    Valkenburg

    Patti M. Valkenburg. Understanding Self-Effects in Social Media: Self-Effects in Social Media.Human Communication Research, 43(4):477–490, October 2017. ISSN 03603989. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12113. URL https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article/43/4/477-490/4670707

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    ‘You have one identity’: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn.Media, Culture & Society, 35(2):199–215, March 2013

    José Van Dijck. ‘You have one identity’: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn.Media, Culture & Society, 35(2):199–215, March 2013. ISSN 0163-4437, 1460-3675. doi: 10.1177/0163443712468605. URL http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0163443712468605

    2013 doi

  76. [84]

    AI voice clones mimic politicians and celebrities, reshaping reality.The Washington Post, October 2023

    Pranshu Verma and Will Oremus. AI voice clones mimic politicians and celebrities, reshaping reality.The Washington Post, October 2023. URL https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/13/ai-voice-cloning-deepfakes/

    2023

  77. [85]

    Hecht, and Eura Jung

    Brooke Chapman Wadsworth, Michael L. Hecht, and Eura Jung. The Role of Identity Gaps, Discrimination, and Acculturation in International Students’ Educational Satisfaction in American Classrooms.Communication Education, 57(1):64–87, January 2008. ISSN 0363-4523, 1479-5795. doi...

    2008 doi

  78. [86]

    Joseph B. Walther. Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction.Communication Research, 23(1):3– 43, February 1996. ISSN 0093-6502, 1552-3810. doi: 10.1177/009365096023001001. URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009365096023001001

    1996 doi

  79. [87]

    The Emergence of Deepfake Technology: A Review.Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(11):39–52, January 2019

    Mika Westerlund. The Emergence of Deepfake Technology: A Review.Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(11):39–52, January 2019. ISSN 19270321. doi: 10.22215/timreview/1282. URL https://timreview.ca/article/1282

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    The Benefits of Using Design Workbooks with Speculative Design Proposals in Information Communication Technology for Development (ICTD)

    Susan Wyche. The Benefits of Using Design Workbooks with Speculative Design Proposals in Information Communication Technology for Development (ICTD). InDesigning Interactive Systems Conference 2021, pages 1861–1874, Virtual Event USA, June 2021. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503- 8476-6. d...

    2021

  81. [89]

    Yelavich

    S. Yelavich. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming.Journal of Design History, 28(2):214–215, May 2015. ISSN 0952-4649, 1741-7279. doi: 10.1093/jdh/epv001. URL https://academic.oup.com/jdh/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jdh/epv001

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    Robert B. Zajonc. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2):1–27, 1968. ISSN 1939-1315, 0022-3514. doi: 10.1037/h0025848. URL https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0025848

    1968 doi

  83. [91]

    Zhang, Michael S

    Amy X. Zhang, Michael S. Bernstein, David R. Karger, and Mark S. Ackerman. Form-From: A Design Space of Social Media Systems.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1):1–47, April 2024. ISSN 2573-0142. doi: 10.1145/3641006. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.114...

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    The many faces of facebook: experiencing social media as performance, exhibition, and personal archive

    Xuan Zhao, Niloufar Salehi, Sasha Naranjit, Sara Alwaalan, Stephen Voida, and Dan Cosley. The many faces of facebook: experiencing social media as performance, exhibition, and personal archive. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages...

    2013

  85. [93]

    Penn, James D

    Sriram “Sri Kalyanaraman, David L. Penn, James D. Ivory, and Abigail Judge. The Virtual Doppelganger: Effects of a Virtual Reality Simulator on Perceptions of Schizophrenia.Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 198(6):437–443, June 2010. ISSN 0022-3018. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3...

    2010

  86. [97]

    Interactor Profile Profile/ Message High Disclosed Acquaintances/ Strangers

  87. [98]

    Cross-media Posting Stream Medium Disclosed Friends

  88. [99]

    Clone Housekeeping Stream/ Network Medium Not Disclosed Close Friends/ Family

  89. [100]

    Personalized Reachout Network/ Message High Not Disclosed Acquaintances/ Strangers

  90. [101]

    Undercover Rejections Message Medium Not Disclosed Acquaintances/ Strangers

  91. [102]

    Post-completion for Trending Topics Stream Low Disclosed Friends

  92. [103]

    Mood Modifer Message Medium Not Disclosed Friends

  93. [104]

    Design Workbook Concepts Attributes Exploring Social Media Clones 27 Workbook Concept AI Autonomy Clone/Interactor Engagement Degree of Interaction Target Value Interactor Value

    Group-convo Simulation Message High Disclosed Friends Table B1. Design Workbook Concepts Attributes Exploring Social Media Clones 27 Workbook Concept AI Autonomy Clone/Interactor Engagement Degree of Interaction Target Value Interactor Value

  94. [105]

    Interactor Profile High 1 to 1 Conversation Make Friends (Bridging Capital) Gain Information (Information Capital)

  95. [106]

    Cross-media Posting Medium 1 to Many Single Post Content Creation Gain Information (Information Capital)

  96. [107]

    Clone Housekeeping High 1 to 1 Non Verbal Content Creation Social Support (Bonding Capital)

  97. [108]

    Personalized Reachout Low 1 to 1 Single Post Make Friends (Bridging Capital) Make Friends (Bridging Capital)

  98. [109]

    Undercover Rejections Medium 1 to 1 Single Post Content Creation Social Support (Bonding Capital)

  99. [110]

    Post-completion for Trending Topics Low 1 to Many Single Post Content Creation Entertainment

  100. [111]

    Mood Modifer Medium 1 to 1 Conversation Social Support (Bonding Capital) Social Support (Bonding Capital)

  101. [112]

    Group-convo Simulation Medium Many to 1 Conversation Make Friends (Bridging Capital) Gain Information (Information Capital) Table B2. Design Workbook Concepts Behaviors and Value C Interview Questions Phase 1 Target Interview Questions (1) Now that you’ve seen all the concepts...

  102. [2008]

    doi: 10.1080/10410230802229688

    ISSN 1041-0236, 1532-7027. doi: 10.1080/10410230802229688. URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10410230802229688

    doi

  103. [2019]

    doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0020-9

    ISSN 2522-5839. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0020-9. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-019-0020-9

    doi

  104. [2023]

    ISBN 978-1-4503-9421-5

    ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-9421-5. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581340. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581340

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.