ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025
From robots to chatbots: unveiling the dynamics of human-AI interaction.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Interventions Targeting Obesity-Related Behaviors: Protocol for a Scoping Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Article
- Expressive activation enhances user satisfaction in AIGC co-creation through perceived control and meaning-making.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring Students' Perceptions and Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Supporting Mental Health: A Preliminary Study in Higher Education in Qatar.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- How Consistent Friendlike Conversation with AI Companions Influences Our Attitudes and Perceptions Toward AI: An Exploratory Experiment.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Addressing loneliness by AI chatbot: a qualitative study of empty-nest elderly.BMC public health · 2026Article
- "Your Digital Doctor Will Now See You": A Narrative Review of VR and AI Technology in Chronic Illness Management.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Perceived control and immersion in AI chatbot interaction: a psychological distance perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in dementia care: challenges, controversies, and policy implications.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid integration of artificial agents-robots, avatars, and chatbots-into human social life necessitates a deeper understanding of human-AI interactions and their impact on social interaction. Artificial agents have become integral across various domains, including healthcare, education, and entertainment, offering enhanced efficiency, personalization, and emotional connectivity. However, their effectiveness in providing successful social interaction is influenced by various factors that impact both their reception and human responses during interaction. The present article explores how different forms of these agents influence processes essential for social interaction, such as attributing mental states and intentions and shaping emotions. The goal of this paper is to analyze the roles that artificial agents can and cannot assume in social environments, the stances humans adopt toward them, and the dynamics of human-artificial agent interactions. Key factors associated with the artificial agent's design such as physical appearance, adaptability to human behavior, user beliefs and knowledge, transparency of social cues, and the uncanny valley phenomenon have been selected as factors that significant influence social interaction in AI contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.