How Anthropomorphic Attitudes Toward Agents Divide User Behavior, and How Design Should Change
TL;DR
A field study of a desktop assistant, where renamers chose the revised reply far more often than default-name users on being treated as a person and having affect received, less robustly on willingness to continue, and neither judged it worse on task interference.
Abstract
Studies of conversational agents rely on interviews, surveys, lab tasks, or taxonomies. Whether anthropomorphic naming splits those patterns, and whether replies should change, lack field evidence. We report a field study of a desktop assistant (May-August 2026; n=257). Stance is an anthropomorphic assistant name (118 users; 45.9%). Behavior comes from a 128-unit sparse-autoencoder codebook, identity tags, and opening lexicons. Ranks differ by stance (Spearman rho=+0.249 vs. null mean +0.382; p=.0419). Teacher and tutoring identities covary with renaming, an introverted task-only orientation against it; renamers greet more and command less; confiding shows the codebook's largest gap. We revise the agent: greet and receive affect on relational openings, execute directly on tasking. In 1,744 judgments (n=129), renamers chose the revised reply far more often than default-name users on being treated as a person and having affect received, less robustly on willingness to continue, and neither judged it worse on task interference.
