Digital anchors vs. human anchors: a study of the effects of credibility endorsement and psychological distance on policy adoption intention

Abstract

Purpose/significance: Faced with the increasing application of digital human technology in the field of public policy dissemination, this study aims to compare the effects of human and digital human anchors. It explores the mechanisms of psychological distance, anthropomorphism, and credibility endorsement to provide empirical guidance for optimizing policy dissemination practices in the digital era. Methods/procedures: Three online experiments were conducted using a between-group design to systematically manipulate the type of policy dissemination subject (human vs. digital anchors), degree of digital human anthropomorphism (high vs. low), and credibility endorsement (high vs. low). After viewing the policy videos, participants were recruited online to measure their psychological distance and policy-adoption intention. Process macros were used to test mediation and moderation. Results/conclusions: The study found that (1) human anchors enhance policy adoption intention more than digital anchors; (2) psychological distance plays a partial mediating role; (3) a high degree of anthropomorphism can narrow the gap between the psychological distance of digital and human anchors; and (4) strong credibility endorsement brings highly anthropomorphic digital anchors closer to humans in terms of psychological distance, while low anthropomorphizers are still at a disadvantage. The effect of digital anchors’ policy communication results from complex interactions between subject characteristics, external empowerment, and audience psychology.