Cited by 94AI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRISpeech and dialogue systems

Effects of Persuasive Dialogues: Testing Bot Identities and Inquiry Strategies

Open access
Shi, Weiyan, Wang, Xuewei, Oh, Yoo Jung, Zhang, Jingwen, Sahay, Saurav, Yu, Zhou·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Intelligent conversational agents, or chatbots, can take on various identities and are increasingly engaging in more human-centered conversations with persuasive goals. However, little is known about how identities and inquiry strategies influence the conversation's effectiveness. We conducted an online study involving 790 participants to be persuaded by a chatbot for charity donation. We designed a two by four factorial experiment (two chatbot identities and four inquiry strategies) where participants were randomly assigned to different conditions. Findings showed that the perceived identity of the chatbot had significant effects on the persuasion outcome (i.e., donation) and interpersonal perceptions (i.e., competence, confidence, warmth, and sincerity). Further, we identified interaction effects among perceived identities and inquiry strategies. We discuss the findings for theoretical and practical implications for developing ethical and effective persuasive chatbots. Our published data, codes, and analyses serve as the first step towards building competent ethical persuasive chatbots.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3313831.3376843

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [27][27] Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazonâ ˘ A ´ Zs Mechanical Turk. Behavior research methods 44, 1 (2012), 1-23. -
  2. [36][36] James W Pennebaker, Martha E Francis, and Roger J Booth. 2001. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 71, 2001 (2001), 2001. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shi, W., Wang, X., Oh, Y. J., Zhang, J., Sahay, S., & Yu, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-21
Pages
1-13
OpenAlex
W3000144571
Cited by
93
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4
FWCI
4.77
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
inquiry strategies, persuasion, charitable giving, interpersonal perception, perceived competence, perceived sincerity, human-chatbot interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review