Artificial intelligence (AI) agency plays an important role in shaping humans’ perceptions and evaluations of AI. This study seeks to conceptually differentiate AI agency from human agency and examine how AI’s agency manifested on source and language dimensions may be associated with humans’ perceptions of AI. A 2 (AI’s source autonomy: autonomous vs human-assisted) × 2 (AI’s language subjectivity: subjective vs objective) × 2 (topics: traveling vs reading) factorial design was adopted (N = 376). The results showed autonomous AI was rated as more trustworthy, and AI using subjective language was rated as more trustworthy and likable. Autonomous AI using subjective language was rated as the most trustworthy, likable, and of the best quality. Participants’ AI literacy moderated the interaction effect of source autonomy and language subjectivity on human trust and chat quality evaluation. Results were discussed in terms of human–AI communication theories and the design and development of AI chatbots.
AbeleAEHaukeNPetersK, et al. (2016) Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness-communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology7: Article 1810.
2.
AhearnLM (2001) Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology30: 109–137.
3.
BakanD (1966) The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago, IL: Rand Mcnally.
4.
BanduraA (2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science1: 164–180.
5.
BennettDMRoudautOAMeklerE (2023) How does HCI understand human autonomy and agency?arXiv [preprint]. arXiv:2301.12490.
6.
BrandtzaegPBFølstadA (2018) Chatbots: changing user needs and motivations. Interactions25: 38–43.
7.
BrandtzaegPBSkjuveMFølstadA (2022) My AI friend: how users of a social chatbot understand their human–AI friendship. Human Communication Research48: 404–429.
8.
BurgoonJKBonitoJALowryPB, et al. (2016) Application of expectancy violations theory to communication with and judgments about embodied agents during a decision-making task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies91: 24–36.
9.
ChungCPennebakerJW (2007) The psychological functions of function words. Social Communication1: 343–359.
10.
DennettDC (1987) The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
DurantiA (2004) Agency in language. In: DurantiA (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 451–473.
12.
EdwardsAEdwardsCWestermanD, et al. (2019) Initial expectations, interactions, and beyond with social robots. Computers in Human Behavior90: 308–314.
13.
EndacottCGLeonardiPM (2022) Artificial intelligence and impression management: consequences of autonomous conversational agents communicating on one’s behalf. Human Communication Research48: 462–490.
14.
FauseyCMLongBLInamoriA, et al. (2010) Constructing agency: the role of language. Frontiers in Psychology1: 162.
15.
FengBMacGeorgeEL (2010) The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research37: 553–575.
16.
FoxJAhnSJJanssenJH, et al. (2015) Avatars versus agents: a meta-analysis quantifying the effect of agency on social influence. Human-Computer Interaction30: 401–432.
17.
FoxJGambinoA (2021) Relationship development with humanoid social robots: applying interpersonal theories to human–robot interaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking24: 294–299.
18.
FoxJMcEwanB (2017) Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: the perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs84: 298–318.
19.
GambinoAFoxJRatanRA (2020) Building a stronger CASA: extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication1: 71–85.
20.
GliksonEWoolleyAW (2020) Human trust in artificial intelligence: review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals14: 627–660.
21.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society22: 70–86.
22.
HancockJTNaamanMLevyK (2020) AI-mediated communication: definition research agenda and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25: 89–100.
23.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
24.
HoAHancockJMinerAS (2018) Psychological relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication68: 712–733.
25.
HonderichT (1995) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
HongJWPengQWilliamsD (2021) Are you ready for artificial Mozart and Skrillex? An experiment testing expectancy violation theory and AI music. New Media & Society23: 1920–1935.
27.
IsbisterKNassC (2000) Consistency of personality in interactive characters: verbal cues non-verbal cues and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies53: 251–267.
28.
KellermanS (1992) ‘I see what you mean’: the role of kinesic behaviour in listening and implications for foreign and second language learning. Applied Linguistics13: 239–258.
29.
KrämerNCRosenthal-von der PüttenAMHoffmannL (2015) Social effects of virtual and robot companions. In: SundarSS (ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 137–159.
30.
LeeJDSeeKA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors46: 50–80.
31.
LeeKMJungYKimJ, et al. (2006) Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents? The effects of physical embodiment tactile interaction and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies64: 962–973.
32.
LimerickHCoyleDMooreJW (2014) The experience of agency in human-computer interactions: a review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience8: 643.
33.
LiuB (2021) In AI we trust? Effects of agency locus and transparency on uncertainty reduction in human–AI interaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication26: 384–402.
34.
LongDMagerkoB (2020) What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In: CHI ‘20: CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 25–30 April.
35.
LoyalSBarnesB (2001) “Agency” as a red herring in social theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences31: 507–524.
36.
McKnightDHChoudhuryVKacmarC (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research13: 334–359.
37.
MolinaMDSundarSS (2022) When AI moderates online content: effects of human collaboration and interactive transparency on user trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27: zmac010.
38.
MolinaMDSundarSS (2024) Does distrust in humans predict greater trust in AI? Role of individual differences in user responses to content moderation. New Media & Society26: 3638–3656.
39.
MoonYNassC (1996) How “real” are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication Research23: 651–674.
40.
MouYZhangLWuY, et al. (2024) Does self-disclosing to a robot induce liking for the robot? Testing the disclosure and liking hypotheses in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction40: 2534–2545.
41.
NaJChoiI (2009) Culture and first-person pronouns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin35: 1492–1499.
42.
NassCMoonY (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues56: 81–103.
43.
NassCFoggBJMoonY (1996) Can computers be teammates?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies45: 669–678.
44.
NgDTKLeungJKLChuSKW, et al. (2021) Conceptualizing AI literacy: an exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence2: 100041.
45.
ObhiSSHallP (2011) Sense of agency and intentional binding in joint action. Experimental Brain Research211: 655–662.
46.
OhCSBailensonJNWelchGF (2018) A systematic review of social presence: definition antecedents and implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI5: 114.
47.
PerloffRM (2008) The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48.
ReevesBNassC (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers Television and New Media Like Real People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
RubinJZPruittDGKimSH (1994) Social Conflict: Escalation Stalemate and Settlement. 2nd ed.Boston, MA: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
50.
RubinZ (1970) Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology16: 265–273.
51.
SchaufTDufnerMNestlerSet al. (2023) Do agency and communion explain the relationship between perceiver and target effects in interpersonal perception? A meta-analysis on generalized reciprocity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin49: 1479–1494.
52.
SchepmanARodwayP (2020) Initial validation of the general attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports1: 100014.
53.
SimpsonJA (2007) Foundations of interpersonal trust. In: KruglanskiAWHigginsTE (eds) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. 2nd ed.New York: Guilford Press, pp. 587–607.
54.
SkjuveMFølstadAFostervoldKI, et al. (2021) My chatbot companion-a study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies149: 102601.
55.
SpencePR (2019) Searching for questions original thoughts or advancing theory: human-machine communication. Computers in Human Behavior90: 285–287.
56.
SteinJPOhlerP (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. Cognition160: 43–50.
57.
SundarSS (2020) Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25: 74–88.
58.
SundarSSNassC (2000) Source orientation in human-computer interaction: programmer networker or independent social actor. Communication Research27: 683–703.
59.
TanisMPostmesT (2005) A social identity approach to trust: interpersonal perception group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology35: 413–424.
60.
TausczikYRPennebakerJW (2010) The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology29: 24–54.
61.
TurkleS (1984) The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster.
62.
van der GootMJEtzrodtK (2023) Disentangling two fundamental paradigms in human-machine communication research: media equation and media evocation. Human-Machine Communication6: 17–30.
63.
VekslerAEEdenJ (2017) Measuring interpersonal liking as a cognitive evaluation: development and validation of the IL-6. Western Journal of Communication81: 641–656.
64.
WangBRauPLPYuanT (2023) Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behaviour & Information Technology42: 1324–1337.
65.
WaytzAHeafnerJEpleyN (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology52: 113–117.
66.
WestermanDEdwardsAPEdwardsC, et al. (2020) I-It, I-Thou, I-Robot: the perceived humanness of AI in human-machine communication. Communication Studies71: 393–408.
67.
WohlinCRunesonPHöstM, et al. (2012) Experimentation in Software Engineering. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
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.
