MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rethinking Psychological Ownership Over AI Agents

2025· article· W7125617334 on OpenAlexaff
Mengqiu Cheng, Yuxin Xu, Anastasia Kuzminykh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationFeelingPhenomenonPosition (finance)Position paperKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As conversational AI agents have become integral to users' digital interaction, psychological ownership (PO) emerges as a crucial phenomenon in human-AI interaction. PO describes the feeling of something as “mine,” and has been shown to foster positive user experience across diverse technology contexts. However, compared to other technologies, certain features of conversational AI agents presents fundamental challenges in fostering PO over this type of technology. Therefore, the previous conceptualization of PO over other technologies might not be directly mapped AI agents. In this position paper, we advocate that new design principles are required for AI agents that address these challenges. Towards this goal, we must examine users' PO specifically for AI agents.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207