skip to main content
10.1145/1541948.1541983acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespersuasiveConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Persuading users through counseling dialogue with a conversational agent

Published:26 April 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present an empirical study of the effect of a computer agent designed to engage a user in a persuasive counseling dialogue on attitudes towards regular exercise. We used two manipulations: (1) how closely the agent simulated human conversation, using either an embodied conversational agent (ECA) or a text-only agent, and (2) whether the agent attempted to build a user-agent relationship through social dialogue. Participants demonstrated a significant increase in positive attitudes (persuasion) following the persuasive dialogue; however, this change was significantly smaller when the agent used social dialogue. Participants' perceptions of the dialogue were most positive for an ECA with social dialogue, or a text-only agent without.

References

  1. Altman, I. and Taylor, D., Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships, Holt, Rinhart & Winston, New York, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, P., Guerrero, L., Andersen, P., and Guerrero, L., The Bright Side of Relational Communication: Interpersonal Warmth as a Social Emotion. In Handbook of Communication and Emotion, Academic Press, 1998, pp. 303--329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickmore, T., Relational Agents: Effecting Change through Human-Computer Relationships, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickmore, T., Caruso, L., Clough-Gorr, K., and Heeren, T. 'It's just like you talk to a friend' relational agents for older adults. HCI and the Older Population, 17, 6, (2005) 711--735. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bickmore, T., Cassell, J., van Kuppevelt, J., Dybkjaer, L., and Bernsen, N., Social Dialogue with Embodied Conversational Agents. In Advances in Natural Multimodal Dialogue Systems, Springer, 2005, pp. 23--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Bickmore, T. and Picard, R. Establishing and Maintaining Long-Term Human-Computer Relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 12, 2, (2005) 293--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Burger, J., Soroka, S., Gonzago, K., Murphy, E., and Somervell, E. The Effect of Fleeting Attraction on Compliance to Requests. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 27, 12, (2001) 1578--1586.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Cacioppo, J. and Petty, R. Effects of message Repetition on Argument Processing, Recall, and Persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1, (1989) 3--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Cacioppo, J., Petty, R., and Morris, K. Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 4, (1983) 805--818.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., and Kao, C. F. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J Pers Assess, 48, 3, (1984) 306--307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cassell, J., Embodied Conversational Agents, {The MIT Press}, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cialdini, R. B. and Goldstein, N. J. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol, 55, 2004) 591--621.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Dahlback, N., Jonsson, A., and Ahrenberg, L., Wizard of Oz Studies: Why and How, IUI 93, 1993, pp. 193--199. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Despland, J. N., de Roten, Y., Despars, J., Stigler, M., and Perry, J. C. Contribution of patient defense mechanisms and therapist interventions to the development of early therapeutic alliance in a brief psychodynamic investigation. The Journal of psychotherapy practice and research, 10, 3, (2001) 155--164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolinski, D., Nawrat, M., and Rudak, I. Dialogue Involvement as a Social Influence Technique. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 27, 11, (2001) 1395--1406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Fogg, B. J., Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, Mogan Kaufmann, New York, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Horvath, A. and Greenberg, L. Development and Validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 2, (1989) 223--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Howard, D. The Influence of Verbal Responses to Common Greetings on Compliance Behavior: The Foot-In-The-Mouth Effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 14, (1990) 1185--1196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jones, L., Sinclair, R., and Courneya, K. The Effects of Source Credibility and Message Framing on Exercise Intentions, Behaviors, and Attitudes: An Integration of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and Prospect Theory1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1, (2003) 179--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Katagiri, Y. and Takahashi, T., Social persuasion in human-agent interaction, Second IJCAI Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems, IJCAI-2001. Menlo Park, CA, 2001, pp. 64--69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lafferty, J. C., Eady, and Elmers, J., The desert survival problem, Human Synergistics, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, D., Garske, J., and Davis, M. K. Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 68, 3, (2000) 438--450.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, W. and Rollnick, S., Motivational Interviewing, Second Edition: Preparing People for Change, The Guilford Press, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Moon, Y. Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers. The Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 4, (2000) 323--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Mullennix, J., Stern, S., Wilson, S., and Dyson, C.-L. Social perception of male and female computer synthesized speech. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 4, (2003) 407--424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Nass, C. and Lee, K., Does Computer-Generated Speech Manifest Personality? An Experimental Test of Similarity-Attraction, Proceedings of CHI '00, 2000, pp. 329--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E., Computers are social actors, Proceedings of CHI '94, 1994, pp. 72--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Petty, R., Wegener, D., Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., and Lindzey, G., Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Personality Variables. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw Hill, 1998, pp. 323--390.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Prochaska, J., Marcus, B., and Dishman, R., The transtheoretical model: applications to exercise. In Advances in Exercise Adherence, Human Kinetics, 1994, pp. 161--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Safran, J. D. and Muran, J. C. The resolution of ruptures in the therapeutic alliance. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 64, 3, (1996) 447--458.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneider, K., Small talk: Analyzing phatic discourse, Hitzeroth, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern, S. E., Mullennix, J. W., Dyson, C., and Wilson, S. J. The persuasiveness of synthetic speech versus human speech. Hum Factors, 41, 4, (1999) 588--595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Warburton, D. E. R., Nicol, C. W., and Bredin, S. S. D. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ, 174, 6, (2006) 801--809.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Whittaker, S., O'Conaill, B., Finn, K., Sellen, A., and Wilbur, S., The role of vision in face-to-face and mediated communication. In Vision-Mediated Communication, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, pp. 23--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiggins, J. A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 3, (1979) 395--412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., and Hodges, L., Can a virtual cat persuade you?: the role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness, CHI '06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, 2006, pp. 1153--1162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Zillman, D. Rhetorical Elicitation of Agreement in Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 2, (1972) 159--165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Persuading users through counseling dialogue with a conversational agent

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in
                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Other conferences
                  Persuasive '09: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology
                  April 2009
                  279 pages
                  ISBN:9781605583761
                  DOI:10.1145/1541948

                  Copyright © 2009 ACM

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 26 April 2009

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  Persuasive '09 Paper Acceptance Rate21of66submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate32of137submissions,23%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader