A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and behavioural responses in human-agent vs. human-human interactions.

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 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 interaction experiences with agents can resemble those with humans, whereas fundamental social attributions and prosocial/moral concerns lag in human-agent interactions. Agents are thus afforded instrumental value on par with humans but lack comparable intrinsic value, providing implications for the development of interactive intelligent agents.