Table 4.

Meta-regression and subgroup analysis results for social perceptions of interaction partners

Response	Meta-regression	Subgroup analysis
Perceived likeability	Appearance difference: F = 7.48, p = 0.011; BF10 = 4.559
	Interaction task: F = 5.16, p = 0.007; BF10 = 4.839
Perceived competence	Agent form: F = 13.42, p = 0.001; BF10 = 16.598
	Appearance difference: F = 12.49, p = 0.002; BF10 = 19.646
	Interaction medium: F = 12.08, p = 0.002; BF10 = 14.841
Agency attribution	Interaction medium: F = 7.09, p = 0.026; BF10 = 4.331
Responsibility attribution	Study setting: F = 11.34, p = 0.007; BF10 = 4.271
	Interaction realism: F = 11.34, p = 0.007; BF10 = 4.271

Moderator analyses were conducted for response types with significant effect-size heterogeneity and at least ten available studies. Potential moderators were tested individually. For categorical moderators with multiple conditions, only conditions represented by at least three studies were included. For simplicity, this table presents results only for moderators that both reached frequentist significance and received at least substantial Bayesian support (p < 0.05; BF₁₀ > 3). Full results for all tested moderators are available in Supplementary Table 9. For meta-regression results, F-value is from random-effects meta-regression. BF₁₀ represents the Bayesian evidence for H₁ (i.e., presence of a moderating effect) over H₀ (i.e., absence of a moderating effect). For follow-up subgroup analyses, Hedges’ g and 95% CI were estimated via random-effects meta-analyses and visualised via orchard plots. k is the number of studies including in the analysis. m is the number of effect sizes included.