This study examined the impact of anthropomorphic traits in large language model (LLM) chatbots on users’ perceptions of humanness and their associated anxiety. Drawing on dehumanization theory, the research investigated how human nature and human uniqueness traits influenced AI-related anxiety through perceptions of humanness in various interaction contexts. A survey of 1000 LLM chatbot users in China, analyzed using validated structural equation modeling, revealed that emotional and moral traits, such as empathy and morality, were positively correlated with perceptions of humanness, which in turn reduced AI anxiety. In contrast, cognitive traits like competence and rationality alleviated anxiety but did not contribute to perceptions of humanness. This study offered valuable theoretical and practical insights into how humans defined and responded to machine personhood in the age of advanced AI.
AndreiA.ZaitA. (2014). Perceptions of warmth & competence in online networking: An experimental analysis of a company launch. Review of Economic and Business Studies, 7(1), 11–29.
2.
BanksJ. (2019). A perceived moral agency scale: Development and validation of a metric for humans and social machines. Computers in Human Behavior, 90(1), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.028
3.
BartneckC.KulićD.CroftE.ZoghbiS. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
4.
BeckerD.RuedaD.BeeseF.TorresB. S. G.LafdiliM.AhrensK.WermterS. (2023). The emotional dilemma: Influence of a human-like robot on trust and cooperation. In 2023 32nd IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1689–1696). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309321
5.
BelancheCasalóL. V.SchepersJ.FlaviánC. (2021). Examining the effects of robots' physical appearance, warmth, and competence in frontline services: The Humanness-Value-Loyalty model. Psychology and Marketing, 38(12), 2357–2376. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21532
6.
BorauS.OtterbringT.LaporteS.Fosso WambaS. (2021). The most human bot: Female gendering increases humanness perceptions of bots and acceptance of AI. Psychology and Marketing, 38(7), 1052–1068. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21480
7.
BowmanR.CooneyO.NewboldJ. W.ThiemeA.ClarkL.DohertyG.CowanB. (2024). Exploring how politeness impacts the user experience of chatbots for mental health support. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 184, 103181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103181
CarpinellaC. M.WymanA. B.PerezM. A.StroessnerS. J. (2017). The robotic social attributes scale (RoSAS): Development and validation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 254–262). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208
10.
ChavesA. P.GerosaM. A. (2021). How should my chatbot interact? A survey on human-chatbot interaction design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(8), 729–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1841438
11.
CheungM. W. (2007). Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510709336745
12.
ChristoforakosL.DiefenbachS. (2023). Technology as a social companion? An exploration of individual and product-related factors of anthropomorphism. Social Science Computer Review, 41(3), 1039–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211065867
13.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
14.
EdwardsC.EdwardsA.SpenceP. R.WestermanD. (2016). Initial interaction expectations with robots: Testing the human-to-human interaction script. Communication Studies, 67(2), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2015.1121899
15.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
EysselF.KuchenbrandtD. (2012). Social categorization of social robots: Anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4), 724–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02082.x
18.
FahnenstichH.RiegerT.RoeslerE. (2024). Trusting under risk–comparing human to AI decision support agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 153, 108107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108107
19.
FetterolfE.HertogE. (2023). It’s not her fault: Trust through anthropomorphism among young adult Amazon Alexa users. Convergence, 31(2), 559–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231200337
20.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
21.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
22.
GoE.SundarS. S. (2019). Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.020
GuzmanA. L.LewisS. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
25.
Harris-WatsonA. M.LarsonL. E.LauharatanahirunN.DeChurchL. A.ContractorN. S. (2023). Social perception in Human-AI teams: Warmth and competence predict receptivity to AI teammates. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107765
26.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
27.
HaslamN.LoughnanS.KashimaY.BainP. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280801981645
28.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
29.
HuangG.WangS. (2023). Is artificial intelligence more persuasive than humans? A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 73(6), 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad024
30.
HumeD. (2007). In NortonD. F.NortonM. J. (Ed.), A Treatise of human nature: Volumn 1: Texts. Clarendon Press. (Originalwork published in 1739).
31.
JinS. V.YounS. (2023). Social presence and imagery processing as predictors of chatbot continuance intention in human-AI-interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(9), 1874–1886. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2129277
32.
JoH.ParkD. H. (2024). Effects of ChatGPT’s AI capabilities and human-like traits on spreading information in work environments. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 7806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57977-0
33.
Jones-JangS. M.ParkY. J. (2023). How do people react to AI failure? Automation bias, algorithmic aversion, and perceived controllability. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(1), zmac029. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac029
34.
KahnJr.P. H.IshiguroH.FriedmanB.KandaT.FreierN. G.SeversonR. L.MillerJ. (2007). What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.04kah
35.
KenskiK.CoeK.RainsS. A. (2020). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47(6), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933
36.
KimJ.ImI. (2023). Anthropomorphic response: Understanding interactions between humans and artificial intelligence agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107512
37.
KimY.SundarS. S. (2012). Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless?Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006
38.
KlineR. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
39.
KobanK.BanksJ. (2024). It feels, therefore it is: Associations between mind perception and mind ascription for social robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 153, 108098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108098
40.
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048
41.
KühneR.PeterJ. (2023). Anthropomorphism in human–robot interactions: A multidimensional conceptualization. Communication Theory, 33(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac020
42.
LeeJ.LeeD. (2023). User perception and self-disclosure towards an AI psychotherapy chatbot according to the anthropomorphism of its profile picture. Telematics and Informatics, 85, 102052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.102052
43.
LeeJ. G.LeeK. M. (2022). Polite speech strategies and their impact on drivers’ trust in autonomous vehicles. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, 107015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107015
44.
LeeS.LeeN.SahY. J. (2020). Perceiving a mind in a chatbot: Effect of mind perception and social cues on co-presence, closeness, and intention to use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(10), 930–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1699748
45.
LelieveldG. J.HendriksH. (2021). The interpersonal effects of distinct emotions in online reviews. Cognition & Emotion, 35(7), 1257–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1947199
46.
LiJ.HuangJ. S. (2020). Dimensions of artificial intelligence anxiety based on the integrated fear acquisition theory. Technology in Society, 63, 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101410
47.
LiL.LeeK. Y.EmokpaeE.YangS. B. (2021). What makes you continuously use chatbot services? Evidence from Chinese online travel agencies. Electronic Markets, 31(3), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00454-z
48.
LiX.SungY. (2021). Anthropomorphism brings us closer: The mediating role of psychological distance in User–AI assistant interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106680
49.
LiuB.SundarS. S. (2018). Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(10), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0110
50.
LiuS.InsuaD. R. (2020). An affective decision-making model with applications to social robotics. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 8(1-2), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-019-00109-1
51.
LombardM.XuK. (2021). Social responses to media technologies in the 21st century: The media are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 2, 29–55. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.2.2
52.
MalleB. F.Thapa MagarS. (2017). What kind of mind do I want in my robot? Developing a measure of desired mental capacities in social robots. In Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 195–196). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3038378
53.
MorewedgeC. K.PrestonJ.WegnerD. M. (2007). Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.1
54.
MozafariN.WeigerW. H.HammerschmidtM. (2022). Trust me, I'm a bot–repercussions of chatbot disclosure in different service frontline settings. Journal of Service Management, 33(2), 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-10-2020-0380
55.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
56.
O’BrienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
57.
PataranutapornP.LiuR.FinnE.MaesP. (2023). Influencing human–AI interaction by priming beliefs about AI can increase perceived trustworthiness, empathy and effectiveness. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(10), 1076–1086. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00720-7
58.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
59.
RaiT. S.ValdesoloP.GrahamJ. (2017). Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(32), 8511–8516. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705238114
RappA.BoldiA.CurtiL.PerrucciA.SimeoniR. (2024). How do people ascribe humanness to chatbots? An analysis of real-world human–agent interactions and a theoretical model of humanness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(19), 6027–6050. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2247596
62.
RappA.CurtiL.BoldiA. (2021). The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 151, 102630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630
63.
ReevesB.NassC. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Center for the study of language and information. Cambridge University Press.
64.
RibinoP. (2023). The role of politeness in human–machine interactions: A systematic literature review and future perspectives. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(Suppl 1), 445–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10540-1
65.
SalahM.AbdelfattahF.Al HalbusiH. (2024). The good, the bad, and the GPT: Reviewing the impact of generative artificial intelligence on psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 59, 101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101872
66.
SeitzL. (2024). Artificial empathy in healthcare chatbots: Does it feel authentic? Computers in Human Behavior. Artificial Humans, 2(1), 100067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100067
67.
ShankD. B.GravesC.GottA.GamezP.RodriguezS. (2019). Feeling our way to machine minds: People’s emotions predict perceptions of sentience in robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.001
68.
ShinD. (2021). The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 146, 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551
SkjuveM.FølstadA.FostervoldK. I.BrandtzaegP. B. (2021). My chatbot companion-a study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601
71.
SteinJ. P.OhlerP. (2017). Venturing into the uncanny valley of mind—the influence of mind attribution on the acceptance of human-like characters in a virtual reality setting. Cognition, 160, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.010
72.
StroessnerS. J.BenitezJ. (2019). The social perception of humanoid and non-humanoid robots: Effects of gendered and machinelike features. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(2), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0502-7
73.
SundarS. S.LeeE.-J. (2022). Rethinking communication in the era of artificial intelligence. Human Communication Research, 48(3), 379–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac014
74.
UllrichD.ButzA.DiefenbachS. (2018). Who do you follow? Social robots’ impact on human judgment. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 265–266). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3177014
75.
Van Der GootM.EtzrodK. (2023). Disentangling two fundamental paradigms in human–machine communication research: Media equation and media evocation. Human-Machine Communication, 6, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.6.2
76.
WangS. (2020). The influence of anonymity and incivility on perceptions of user comments on news websites. Mass Communication & Society, 23(6), 912–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1784950
77.
WangY. Y.WangY. S. (2022). Development and validation of an artificial intelligence anxiety scale: An initial application in predicting motivated learning behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674887
78.
WaytzA.CacioppoJ.EpleyN. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
79.
WaytzA.HeafnerJ.EpleyN. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005
80.
WillemsJ.SchmidthuberL.VogelD.EbingerF.VanderelstD. (2022). Ethics of robotized public services: The role of robot design and its actions. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101683
81.
WilsonA.StefanikC.ShankD. B. (2022). How do people judge the immorality of artificial intelligence versus humans committing moral wrongs in real-world situations?Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8, 100229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100229
82.
XiY.JiA.YuW. (2024). Enhancing or impeding? Exploring the dual impact of anthropomorphism in large language models on user aggression. Telematics and Informatics, 95, 102194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2024.102194
83.
XiY.MaiL. T. N. (2025) (In press). Shifting tides: How public perceptions of GPT regulation evolved before and after GPT-4 on Quora. Telecommunications Policy, 103001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2025.103001
84.
YaoX.XiY. (2024). Pathways linking expectations for AI chatbots to loyalty: A moderated mediation analysis. Technology in Society, 78, 102625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102625
85.
YimM. C. (2023). Effect of AI chatbot’s interactivity on consumers’ negative word-of-mouth intention: Mediating role of perceived empathy and anger. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(18), 5415–5430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2234114
86.
ZłotowskiJ.ProudfootD.YogeeswaranK.BartneckC. (2015). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. International journal of social robotics, 7(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6
87.
ZłotowskiJ.SumiokaH.NishioS.GlasD. F.BartneckC.IshiguroH. (2016). Appearance of a robot affects the impact of its behaviour on perceived trustworthiness and empathy. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 7(1), 000010151520160005. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2016-0005
