When the Persona RepliesRethinking Parasocial Interaction in the Age of AI-Driven Virtual Humans
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65514/rsegvy27Keywords:
parasocial interaction; quasi-social interaction; virtual humans; AI-driven agents; human–machine communication; media personaeAbstract
The concept of parasocial interaction, introduced by Horton and Wohl (1956) to describe the one-sided intimacy television viewers felt toward broadcasters, is now routinely applied to AI-driven virtual humans, digitally rendered figures that recognize individual users, respond in real time, and sustain a stable persona across encounters. This article argues that such application is a conceptual overstretch. We show that the parasocial concept rests on three implicit premises— non-reciprocity, non-responsiveness, and performer-side control of conten—and that AI-driven virtual humans violate all three simultaneously, dissolving the structural asymmetry on which the concept depends. Rather than discarding or further stretching the concept, we propose a reconceptualization: a parasocial-to-social continuum with a new intermediate category, quasi-social interaction, defined as a machine-mediated relational mode that produces genuine behavioural reciprocity while lacking consciousness, autobiographical continuity, and moral agency. We distinguish the three modes along four dimensions and bound the new category against friendship, classical parasociality, and mere tool-use. The article contributes a diagnosis of a broken premise structure, a new conceptual category for responsive media figures, and a set of testable propositions to guide future empirical research on human–virtual human relationships.
References
1.Andrejevic, M., & Volcic, Z. (2025). Automated parasociality: From personalization to personification. Television & New Media, 26(4), 421–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764241300436
2.Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270
3.Dibble, J. L., Hartmann, T., & Rosaen, S. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12063
4.Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. 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
5.Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
6.Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. 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
7.Hartmann, T. (2023). Three conceptual challenges to parasocial interaction: Anticipated responses, implicit address, and the interactivity problem. In R. Tukachinsky Forster (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Parasocial Experiences (pp. 51–69). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197650677.013.3 [To confirm: page range appears as 51–69 and 51–68 across sources; verify against the printed chapter.]
8.Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1104–1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01595.x
Hepp, A., Loosen, W., Dreyer, S., Jarke, J., Kannengießer, S., Katzenbach, C., Malaka, R., Pfadenhauer, M., Puschmann, C., & Schulz, W. (2023). Systematizing the field of research on human–machine communication: A conceptual framework. Digital Journalism, 11(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2152840
9.Holbrook, C., Holman, D., Clingo, J., & Wagner, A. R. (2024). Overtrust in AI recommendations about whether or not to kill: Evidence from two human–robot interaction studies. Scientific Reports, 14, 19751. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69771-z
10.Horton, D., & Strauss, A. (1957). Interaction in audience-participation shows. American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), 579–587. https://doi.org/10.1086/222106
11.Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
12.Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
13.Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x
14.Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72–78). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703
15.Liu, D. (2025). Is interaction between human and artificial intelligence–driven agents (para)social? A scoping review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2024.0532
16.Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.
17.Stein, J.-P., Breves, P. L., & Anders, N. (2024). Parasocial interactions with real and virtual influencers: The role of perceived similarity and human-likeness. New Media & Society, 26(6), 3433–3453. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221102900
18.Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (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
