Media use–social capital research has studied traditional and social media use and associated social capital. Still, little is known about whether social capital would be cultivated or damaged by the use of conversational artificial intelligence (AI). This study explores the associations between conversational AI use and various measures of social capital using a territory-wide survey of an online representative sample in Hong Kong (n = 1022). The results showed that conversational AI users (n = 398) were more likely to have more offline and online bonding and bridging social capital, social trust, and civic participation than non-users (n = 624). For the conversational AI users, intensity and frequency of conversational AI use were the positive predictors of the social capital measures. The findings demonstrated larger effect sizes for online bonding and bridging social capital than offline bonding and bridging social capital.
ChanM (2015) Mobile phones and the good life: examining the relationships among mobile use, social capital and subjective well-being. New Media & Society17: 96–113.
2.
ChenH-TLiX (2017) The contribution of mobile social media to social capital and psychological well-being: examining the role of communicative use, friending and self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior75: 958–965.
3.
ChengYJiangH (2020) How do AI-driven chatbots impact user experience? Examining gratifications, perceived privacy risk, satisfaction, loyalty, and continued use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media64: 592–614.
4.
ChoiTRDrumwrightME (2021) “OK, Google, why do I use you?” Motivations, post-consumption evaluations, and perceptions of voice AI assistants. Telematics and Informatics62: 101628.
5.
CohenJ (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112: 155–159.
6.
ColemanJS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology94: S95–S120.
7.
EllisonNBGrayRLampeC, et al. (2014) Social capital and resource requests on Facebook. New Media & Society16: 1104–1121.
8.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12: 1143–1168.
9.
FernandesTOliveiraE (2021) Understanding consumers’ acceptance of automated technologies in service encounters: drivers of digital voice assistants adoption. Journal of Business Research122: 180–191.
10.
FrankishKRamseyWM (eds) (2014) The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
GambinoAFoxJRatanR (2020) Building a stronger CASA: extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication1: 71–86.
12.
GerbnerG (1998) Cultivation analysis: an overview. Mass Communication and Society1: 175–194.
13.
GilDeZúñigaHJungNValenzuelaS (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17: 319–336.
GuzmanAL (2019) Voices in and of the machine: source orientation toward mobile virtual assistants. Computers in Human Behavior90: 343–350.
16.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society22: 70–86.
17.
HoferMAubertV (2013) Perceived bridging and bonding social capital on Twitter: differentiating between followers and followees. Computers in Human Behavior29: 2134–2142.
18.
HoogheMOserJ (2015) Internet, television and social capital: the effect of “screen time” on social capital. Information, Communication & Society18: 1175–1199.
19.
HuberBGil De ZúñigaHDiehlT, et al. (2019) Effects of second screening: building social media social capital through dual screen use. Human Communication Research45: 334–365.
20.
InabaYTogawaK (2021) Social capital in the creation of AI perception. Behaviormetrika48: 79–102.
21.
KatzEGurevitchMHaasH (1973) On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review38: 164–181.
22.
LeeHChoC-H (2020) Uses and gratifications of smart speakers: modelling the effectiveness of smart speaker advertising. International Journal of Advertising39: 1150–1171.
23.
LinJ-HT (2019) Strategic social grooming: emergent social grooming styles on Facebook, social capital and well-being. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication24: 90–107.
24.
LinN (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
McLeanGOsei-FrimpongK (2019) Hey Alexa . . . examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Computers in Human Behavior99: 28–37.
26.
MoyPScheufeleDAHolbertRL (1999) Television use and social capital: testing Putnam’s time displacement hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society2: 27–45.
27.
NassCMoonY (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues56: 81–103.
28.
NassCYenC (2010) The Man Who Lied to His Laptop: What We Can Learn about Ourselves from Our Machines. New York: Penguin Books.
29.
NassCSteuerJTauberER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems celebrating interdependence—CHI ’94, pp. 72–78. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/191666.191703
30.
NataleS (2021) Communicating through or communicating with: approaching artificial intelligence from a communication and media studies perspective. Communication Theory31: 905–910.
31.
NgY-L (2020) Toward an evolutionary perspective on social media use for cooperation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences14: 132–146.
32.
NgY-L (2021) A prisoner’s dilemma experiment on human–communicative artificial intelligence cooperation. In: 71st Annual international communication association conference. Virtual conference.
33.
NieNH (2001) Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet. American Behavioral Scientist45: 420–435.
34.
PhuaJJinSVKimJ (2017) Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: a comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior72: 115–122.
35.
PitardiVMarriottHR (2021) Alexa, she’s not human but . . . unveiling the drivers of consumers’ trust in voice-based artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing38: 626–642.
36.
PutnamRD (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy6: 65–78.
37.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
38.
ReevesBNassC (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
RosenbergM (1956) Misanthropy and political ideology. American Sociological Review21: 690–695.
40.
RosengrenKE (1974) Uses and gratifications: a paradigm outlined. In: BlumlerJKatzE (eds) The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 269–286.
41.
ScheufeleDAShahDV (2000) Personality strength and social capital: the role of dispositional and informational variables in the production of civic participation. Communication Research27: 107–131.
42.
SchweitzerFBelkRJordanW, et al. (2019) Servant, friend or master? The relationships users build with voice-controlled smart devices. Journal of Marketing Management35: 693–715.
43.
ShahDV (1998) Civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and television use: an individual-level assessment of social capital. Political Psychology19: 469–496.
44.
SundarSS (2012) Social Psychology of Interactivity in Human-Website Interaction (eds JoinsonANMcKennaKYAPostmesT, et al.). Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
SundarSS (2020) Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25: 74–88.
46.
SundarSSLimperosAM (2013) Uses and grats 2.0: new gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57: 504–525.
47.
TraegerMLStrohkorb SeboSJungM, et al. (2020) Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America117: 6370–6375.
48.
ValenzuelaSParkNKeeKF (2009) Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14: 875–901.
49.
VelezJALoofTSmithCA, et al. (2019) Switching schemas: do effects of mindless interactions with agents carry over to humans and vice versa?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication24: 335–352.
50.
VergeerMPelzerB (2009) Consequences of media and Internet use for offline and online network capital and well-being. A causal model approach. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication15: 189–210.
51.
WilliamsD (2006) On and off the ’net: scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11: 593–628.
52.
YenCChiangM-C (2021) Trust me, if you can: a study on the factors that influence consumers’ purchase intention triggered by chatbots based on brain image evidence and self-reported assessments. Behaviour & Information Technology40: 1177–1194.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
