ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Digital anchors vs. human anchors: a study of the effects of credibility endorsement and psychological distance on policy adoption intention.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI virtual streamers in sustainable food marketing: how expertise, interactivity, and anthropomorphism shape consumer acceptance of upcycled foods.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Mechanism of AI chatbot anthropomorphism on consumer impulse buying in live streaming scenarios based on SOR framework.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose/significance: Faced with the increasing application of digital human technology in the field of public policy dissemination, this study aims to compare the effects of human and digital human anchors. It explores the mechanisms of psychological distance, anthropomorphism, and credibility endorsement to provide empirical guidance for optimizing policy dissemination practices in the digital era. Methods/procedures: Three online experiments were conducted using a between-group design to systematically manipulate the type of policy dissemination subject (human vs. digital anchors), degree of digital human anthropomorphism (high vs. low), and credibility endorsement (high vs. low). After viewing the policy videos, participants were recruited online to measure their psychological distance and policy-adoption intention. Process macros were used to test mediation and moderation. Results/conclusions: The study found that (1) human anchors enhance policy adoption intention more than digital anchors; (2) psychological distance plays a partial mediating role; (3) a high degree of anthropomorphism can narrow the gap between the psychological distance of digital and human anchors; and (4) strong credibility endorsement brings highly anthropomorphic digital anchors closer to humans in terms of psychological distance, while low anthropomorphizers are still at a disadvantage. The effect of digital anchors' policy communication results from complex interactions between subject characteristics, external empowerment, and audience psychology.
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.