Grade-Level Differences in Adolescent Anthropomorphism Toward Conversational AI
Abstract
Adolescent interaction with conversational artificial intelligence (CAIs), most notably large language model (LLM) based systems, has led to critical questions about anthropomorphic interaction and its consequences to human-computer interaction and education. Learning, comforting, sharing, talking to LLMs may create a sense of connection. In this research, high school students were surveyed to investigate five anthropomorphic dimensions viz roleplay, courtesy, emotionality, reinforcement, and companionship. The interaction of these anthropomorphic dimensions with perceived functionality of the CAIs was studied with respect to gender and grade level on a sample of 109 adolescents. Findings showed that there were no significant gender differences in dimensions of anthropomorphism or perceived functionality. However, the differences in grades levels were significant, underclassmen (Grades 9-10) reported an increase in all dimensions and perceived functionality, with large effect sizes. Selective effects were observed in interaction time with CAI, and these differences were significantly observed in roleplay. Correlational and regression analysis indicated that some of the anthropomorphic dimensions, especially courtesy, were positively related to and predictive of the perceived functionality but the relationship between them varied by grade levels. Altogether, the current results indicate that anthropomorphic interaction with CAIs is not uniform across adolescence and is associated with how students evaluate the functional effectiveness of these systems. The study is among the first to examine adolescents across all five anthropomorphic dimensions, and its findings may inform the development of guardrails for educational technologies as well as age-sensitive AI literacy frameworks.
References
Balakrishnan, J., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Role of cognitive absorption in building user trust and experience. Psychology and Marketing, 38(4), 643–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21462
Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Kuzyk, R., Fior, M., & Nugent, S. (2011). Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(7–8), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.04.003
Bryson, J. (2019). The past decade and future of AI’s impact on society. Science, 364(6446), 107–109.
Casheekar, A., Lahiri, A., Rath, K., Prabhakar, K. S., & Srinivasan, K. (2024). A contemporary review on chatbots, AI-powered virtual conversational agents, ChatGPT: Applications, open challenges and future research directions. Computer Science Review, 52, 100632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2024.100632
Chin, M. G., Sims, V. K., Clark, B., & Lopez, G. R. (2004). Measuring Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism toward Machines and Animals. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48(11), 1252–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120404801110
Coyne, S. M., Rogers, A. A., & Calamaro, C. (2021). Parasocial relationships in adolescence: Development, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(1), 1–15.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. (2007). On seeing human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
European Commission, 2019.
Gibbons, S., Mugunthan, T., & Nielsen, J. (2023, October 20). The 4 degrees of anthropomorphism of generative AI. Nielsen Norman Group. The 4 Degrees of Anthropomorphism of Generative AI
Giles, D. (2010). Parasocial relationships. SAGE.
Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483–500.
Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research, Academy of Management Annals, Academy of Management Annalshttps://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
Humanizing Machines: Rethinking LLM Anthropomorphism Through a Multi-Level Framework of Design, EMNLP https://aclanthology.org/2025.emnlp-main.164/
Kahn, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., Gill, B. T., Ruckert, J. H., & Shen, S. (2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027033
Kim, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2012). Anthropomorphism in human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 118–125.
Li, M., & Suh, A. (2022). Anthropomorphism in AI-enabled technology: A literature review. Electronic Markets, 32(4), 2245–2275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00591-7
Li, Xinge, & Sung, Y. (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
Merrill, N., Kim, J., & Collins, C. (2022). Social presence in embodied AI companions. Computers in Human Behavior, 133, 107296.
Mori, K., Nishimura, T., & Shimizu, M. (2020). Social bonding with conversational agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 917–929.
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.
Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1999). Can computers be polite? Human Communication Research, 26(1), 174–185.
Niche. (2025). SCHOOL PROFILE 2024-2025. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1728670640/pausdorg/w9jz2hqizkj2hzuon56j/GunnProfile2024-202510-11-24.pdf#:~:text=2024%2D2025%20(Total%20enrollment)%20Total%20Students:%201%2C652%20African%2DAmerican
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Pan, E. Z., Xu, Y., & Ward, L. M. (2025). Exploring associations among AI usage, anthropomorphism, and perceived human uniqueness in adolescents. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5q72c631#main
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
Salles, A., Evers, K., & Farisco, M. (2020). Anthropomorphism in AI: a framework. AI & Society, 35(4), 927–936.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescence (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Troshani, I., Janssen, M., & Lymer, A. (2020). Consumer trust in AI service technologies. Journal of Service Management, 31(2), 203–229.
Uysal, E., Alavi, S., & Bezençon, V. (2022). Trojan horse or useful helper? A relationship perspective on artificial intelligence assistants with humanlike features. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6), 1153–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00856-9
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (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), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388.
Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2015). Anthropomorphism and robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 130–140.
Authors retain copyright of their published work and grant the International Journal of Social Science Research and Review (IJSSRR) the right of first publication.
Articles published in IJSSRR are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
Authors are permitted to share, archive, and distribute the published version of their work, provided that proper acknowledgement of the original publication in IJSSRR is given.
