Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42774357›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Warmth and competence in affective companion virtual humans: differential effects on behavioral intention via hedonic benefits.

Ting Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ting ZhangSchool of Humanities, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generation Z increasingly engages with affective companion virtual humans not as tools but as partners. However, it remains unclear how social perceptions-specifically warmth and competence-privacy-related attitudes jointly influence their behavioral intention, and whether hedonic benefits mediate these effects. Drawing on the hedonic motivation system acceptance model and the stereotype content model, this study proposes an integrated model linking perceived warmth, perceived competence, perceived privacy risk and privacy cynicism to behavioral intention toward affective companion virtual humans, with hedonic benefits as a mediator. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) on 348 valid responses from a Generation Z sample, the results show that: (1) perceived warmth, perceived competence and privacy cynicism are directly and positively associated with behavioral intention; (2) hedonic benefits partially mediate the effect of perceived warmth on behavioral intention (VAF = 36%), but play only a negligible mediating role for perceived competence (VAF = 15%); and (3) perceived privacy risk has no significant direct or indirect effect. These findings clarify the differential pathways of warmth and competence in affective companion virtual humans acceptance: warmth is associated with both direct and hedonic routes, whereas competence is predominantly associated with intention through direct instrumental pathways. The results also indicate that privacy cynicism can co-exist with continued use intention without diminishing hedonic experience. Practically, the findings suggest that enhancing emotional warmth and functional competence, while acknowledging users' privacy fatigue, is more effective than solely focusing on reducing privacy risk perceptions.

Indexed as

affective companion virtual humansbehavioral intentionhedonic benefitsperceived competenceperceived warmthprivacy cynicism

Identifiers

PMID42774357
PMCPMC13593773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.