Werkzeug, Assistenz oder Partner*in? Nutzungspraktiken von ChatGPT und anthropomorphisierende Rollenzuschreibungen

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: M&K Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft Volume 74 (2026), Issue 2
Open Access Full access

M&K Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft

Volume 74 (2026), Issue 2

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2026
ISSN-Online
2942-3317
ISSN-Print
1615-634X

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 74 (2026), Issue 2

Werkzeug, Assistenz oder Partner*in? Nutzungspraktiken von ChatGPT und anthropomorphisierende Rollenzuschreibungen

Authors:
ISSN-Print
1615-634X
ISSN-Online
2942-3317
Preview:

Previous research shows that the use of artificial intelligence (AI) is often accompanied by anthropomorphization, manifested, for example in the attribution of human-like roles to AI systems. However, anthropomorphization has rarely been studied in the context of generative AI—a crucial research gap given its increasing use and communicative character, distinguishing it from other forms of AI. This qualitative study analyzes how communication studies and computer science students—as early adopters of generative AI—use this technology and which anthropomorphising roles they attribute to ChatGPT. The results show that students use ChatGPT primarily to boost productivity and generate ideas, which influences their attribution of anthropomorphizing roles to this technology. While most students consciously classify ChatGPT as a tool or as assistance, their implicit use practices reveal a perception of it as a partner. These findings extend the dual model of anthropomorphization. From a societal perspective, they suggest that raising awareness of contradictions in (non-)anthropomorphization may promote AI literacy.

Bibliography

  1. Alabed, A., Javornik, A., & Gregory-Smith, D. (2022). AI anthropomorphism and its effect on users’ self-congruence and self–AI integration: A theoretical framework and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, Artikelnummer 121786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121786 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  2. Assad, A. (2024). Exploring the use of ChatGPT among media students in Egypt: Opportunities and challenges. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(2), Artikelnummer e202424. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14416 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  3. Baek, T. H. & Kim, M. (2023). Is ChatGPT scary good? How user motivations affect creepiness and trust in generative artificial intelligence. Telematics And Informatics, 83, Artikelnummer 102030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.102030 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  4. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Canada, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  6. Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., & Askell, A. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  7. Buruk, O. (2023). Academic Writing with GPT-3.5 (ChatGPT): Reflections on practices, efficacy and transparency. Mindtrek ’23: Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1145/3616961.3616992 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  8. Chakraborty, D., Kumar Kar, A., Patre, S., & Gupta, S. (2024). Enhancing trust in online grocery shopping through generative AI chatbots. Journal of Business Research, 180, Artikelnummer 114737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114737 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  9. Chen, Y., Wang, H., Rao Hill, S., & Li, B. (2024). Consumer attitudes toward AI-generated ads: Appeal types, self-efficacy and AI’s social role. Journal of Business Research, 185, Artikelnummer 114867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114867 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  10. Cheng, X., Zhang, X., Cohen, J., & Mou, J. (2022). Human vs. AI: Understanding the impact of anthropomorphism on consumer response to chatbots from the perspective of trust and relationship norms. Information Processing & Management, 59(3), Artikelnummer 102940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.102940 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  11. Choi, T. R., & Drumwright, M. E. (2021). “OK, Google, why do I use you?”. Motivations, post-consumption evaluations, and perceptions of voice AI assistants. Telematics And Informatics, 62, Artikelnummer 101628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101628 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  12. Couldry, N. (2004). Theorising media as practice. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1035033042000238295 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  13. Delcker, J. (2023, 24. Februar). KI: ChatGPT befeuert Diskussion über Regeln. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/de/künstliche-intelligenz-chatgpt-befeuert-diskussion-über-regeln/a-64810311 [01.04.2026]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  14. Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2019, 1, 4171–4186. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  15. Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2025). Agentifying agentic AI. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2511.17332 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  16. 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  17. Gamboa, E., Galda, R., Mayas, C., & Hirth, M. (2021). The crowd thinks aloud: Crowdsourcing usability testing with the thinking aloud method. HCI International 2021 – Late Breaking Papers: Design and User Experience, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90238-4_3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  18. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  19. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Springer VS. https://link.springer.com/book/9783531172385 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  20. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. University of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  21. Gottschling, S., Seidl, T., & Vonhof, C. (2024). Nutzung von KI-Tools durch Studierende. Eine exemplarische Untersuchung studentischer Nutzungsszenarien. die hochschullehre, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3278/HSL2411W Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  22. 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  23. Hanley, M., & Wohl, H. (2025). Producing shifting personhood: How designers anthropomorphize artificial intelligence. Big Data & Society, 12(4), 20539517251392067. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517251392067 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  24. Hepp, A., Loosen, W., Dreyer, S., Jarke, J., Kannengießer, S., Katzenbach, C., Malaka, R., Pfadenhauer, M., Puschmann, C., & Schulz, W. (2023). ChatGPT, LaMDA, and the hype around communicative AI: The automation of communication as a field of research in media and communication studies. Human-Machine Communication, 6, 41–63. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.6.4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  25. Hu, P., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2022). Experiencing power over AI: The fit effect of perceived power and desire for power on consumers’ choice for voice shopping. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107091 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  26. Hüsch, M., Horstmann, N., & Breiter, A. (2024, 10. Juli). CHECK – Künstliche Intelligenz in Studium und Lehre – Die Sicht der Studierenden im WS 2023/24. Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung. https://www.che.de/2024/kuenstliche-intelligenz-im-studium-noch-nicht-in-allen-faechern-auf-kurs/ [01.04.2026]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  27. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Artikelnummer 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  28. Kim, J., & Im, I. (2023). Anthropomorphic response: Understanding interactions between humans and artificial intelligence agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, Artikel 107512. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  29. Kim, J., Merrill, K., Jr, & Collins, C. (2021). AI as a friend or assistant: The mediating role of perceived usefulness in social AI vs. functional AI. Telematics and Informatics, 64, Artikelnummer 101694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101694 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  30. Kim, T., Molina, M. D., Rheu, M. (mj), Zhan, E. S., & Peng, W. (2023). One AI does not fit all: A cluster analysis of the laypeople’s perception of AI roles. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581340 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  31. Klein, K., & Martinez, L. F. (2023). The impact of anthropomorphism on customer satisfaction in chatbot commerce: An experimental study in the food sector. Electronic Commerce Research, 23(4), 2789–2825. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  32. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  33. Laban, G. (2021). Perceptions of anthropomorphism in a chatbot dialogue: The role of animacy and intelligence. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472307.3484686 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  34. Lee, S., Lee, N., & Sah, Y. J. (2020). Perceiving a mind in a chatbot: Effect of mind perception and social cues on co-presence, closeness, and intention to use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(10), 930–940. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  35. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144481667543 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  36. Lünenborg, M., & Raetzsch, C. (2018). From public sphere to performative publics: Developing media practice as an analytic model. In S. Foellmer, M. Lünenborg, & C. Raetzsch (Hrsg.), Media practices, social movements, and performativity. Transdisciplinary approaches (S. 13–35). Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  37. Marquardt, M. (2017). Anthropomorphisierung in der Mensch-Roboter-Interaktionsforschung: Theoretische Zugänge und soziologisches Anschlusspotential. Working Papers kultur- und techniksoziologische Studien, 10(1), Artikelnummer 01/2017. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-57037-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  38. Mateus, J.-C., Cappello, G., Lugo, N., & Guerrero-Pico, M. (2024). Communication educators facing the arrival of generative artificial intelligence: Exploration in Mexico, Peru, and Spain. Digital Education Review, 45, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2024.45.106-114 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  39. Mogavi, R. H., Deng, C., Kim, J. J., Zhou, P., Kwon, Y. D., Metwally, A. H. S., Tlili, A., Bassanelli, S., Bucchiarone, A., Gujar, S., Nacke, L. E. & Hui, P. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100027 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  40. Ng, D. T. K., Chan, E. K. C., & Lo, C. K. (2025). Opportunities, challenges and school strategies for integrating generative AI in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Artikelnummer 100373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100373 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  41. Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2019). Relationship journeys in the internet of things: A new framework for understanding interactions between consumers and smart objects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0608-3 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  42. OpenAI (2022, 30. November). Introducing ChatGPT. https://openai.com/index/chatgpt/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  43. Paus-Hasebrink, I., & Hasebrink, U. (2024). Mediengebrauchsforschung. Ein praxeologisch gerahmter Aufriss des Forschungsfeldes, das früher Publikums- und Rezeptionsforschung genannt wurde. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft (M&K), 72(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2024-4-357 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  44. Pentzold, C., Gentzel, P. & Reißmann, W. (2024). Was machen Menschen und Medien? Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-43998-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  45. Persson, P., Laaksolahti, J., & Lönnqvist, P. (2000). Anthropomorphism – a multi-layered phenomenon. AAAI Technical Report FS-00-04. https://cdn.aaai.org/Symposia/Fall/2000/FS-00-04/FS00-04-025.pdf [01.04.2026]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  46. Placani, A. (2024). Anthropomorphism in AI: Hype and fallacy. AI and Ethics, 4(3), 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00419-4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  47. Radford, A., Narasimhan, K., Salimans, T., & Sutskever, I. (2018). Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. OpenAI, 1–12. https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/language-unsupervised/language_understanding_paper.pdf [01.04.2026]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  48. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  49. Sarigul, B., Schneider, F. M., & Utz, S. (2024). Believe it or not? Investigating the credibility of voice assistants in the context of social roles and relationship types. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2375797 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  50. Schatzki, T. R. (1997). Practices and actions a Wittgensteinian critique of Bourdieu and Giddens. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(3), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319702700301 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  51. Schuetzler, R. M., Grimes, M., Giboney, J. S., & Buckman, J. (2014). Facilitating natural conversational agent interactions: Lessons from a deception experiment. Information Systems and Quantitative Analysis Faculty Proceedings & Presentations, 1–17. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2014/proceedings/HCI/9/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  52. Schweitzer, F., Belk, R., Jordan, W., & Ortner, M. (2019). Servant, friend or master? The relationships users build with voice-controlled smart devices. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(7–8), 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2019.1596970 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  53. Sindoni, M. G. (2024). The femininization of AI-powered voice assistants: Personification, anthropomorphism and discourse ideologies. Discourse, Context & Media, 62, Artikelnummer 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2024.100833 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  54. Skjuve, M., Haugstveit, I. M., Følstad, A., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2019). Help! Is my chatbot falling into the uncanny valley? An empirical study of user experience in human-chatbot interaction. Human Technology, 15(1), 30–54. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201902201607 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  55. Skulmowski, A. (2024). Placebo or assistant? Generative AI between externalization and anthropomorphization. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Artikelnummer 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09894-x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  56. Sowa, K., Przegalinska, A., & Ciechanowski, L. (2021). Cobots in knowledge work: Human – AI collaboration in managerial professions. Journal of Business Research, 125, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.038 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  57. Tschopp, M., Gieselmann, M., & Sassenberg, K. (2023). Servant by default? How humans perceive their relationship with conversational AI. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 17(3), Artikelnummer 9. https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2023-3-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  58. von Garrel, J., Mayer, J., & Mühlfeld, M. (2023). Künstliche Intelligenz im Studium. Eine quantitative Befragung von Studierenden zur Nutzung von ChatGPT & Co. Hochschule Darmstadt. https://doi.org/10.48444/h_docs-pub-395 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  59. Wagner, K., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2019). Alexa, are you human? Investigating the anthropomorphism of digital voice assistants – a qualitative approach. Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich 2019, 1–17. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/human_computer_interact/human_computer_interact/7/ [02.04.2026]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  60. Whang, C., & Im, H. (2021). “I like your suggestion!” The role of humanlikeness and parasocial relationship on the website versus voice shopper’s perception of recommendations. Psychology & Marketing, 38(4), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21437 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187
  61. Złotowski, J., Sumioka, H., Eyssel, F., Nishio, S., Bartneck, C., & Ishiguro, H. (2018). Model of dual anthropomorphism: The relationship between the media equation effect and implicit anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10, 701–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0476-5 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2026-2-187

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF) Full download (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media