AI Uncanniness Perception
Information SystemsReliability: alpha 0.853 sample items
About this scale
A multi-item measure of the eerie discomfort when AI agents (avatars, chatbots, deepfakes) appear almost — but not quite — human. Anchored in Mori's uncanny valley.
Sample item(s)
“The AI agent's behaviour felt unsettling because it was almost human”
“I was uncomfortable with how human-like the AI felt”
“Something about the AI's responses felt strange or eerie”
Reliability
Reported internal consistency: alpha 0.85. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach’s α ≥ .70 is considered acceptable, ≥ .80 good, and ≥ .90 excellent for established measures.
Notes
Increasingly relevant as voice assistants and avatars approach human-likeness.
Source & citation
Stein, J.-P., & Ohler, P. (2017): Venturing into the uncanny valley of mind — the influence of mind attribution on the acceptance of human-like characters in a virtual reality setting. Cognition, Vol. 160, pp. 43–50.
Stein & Ohler (2017): Uncanny valley of mind. Cognition, 160, 43–50.
Source. Scale details are summarised from the publication cited above. Always consult the original source for the full item set, scoring, and permission to use.
Use it in your research
Need to check the reliability or psychometrics of this scale in your own data? Use the free DrAIStudio research tools:
Cronbach’s alpha calculator
All statistical calculators
Search the full Scale Atlas
Academic writing humanizer