Beyond the Uncanny Valley: Attachment Avoidance in User Preferences for AI Virtual Companion Apps Interfaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing popularity of AI companions, designers have yet to fully consider the critical role of interface modalities in shaping user preferences. We investigate how different interface modalities in AI virtual companion apps (text-based, audio-based, and virtual human-based) influence individual usage intentions. Combining sentiment analysis and the four experiments, we demonstrate that audio-based interfaces elicit the strongest usage intention, outperforming both text-based and virtual human-based interfaces. We also propose that experience perceptions mediate the relationship between interface design and usage intention, highlighting the primacy of psychological factors over visual anthropomorphism—a finding that challenges conventional uncanny valley explanations. Furthermore, attachment avoidance moderates this effect. These findings theoretically advance human-AI virtual companion interaction research by establishing experience perceptions as a mediator and integrating attachment theory. Practically, this study highlights the need for interface designs balancing emotional support with psychological comfort, particularly for users with high attachment avoidance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it