Assessing the effect of persuasive robots interactive social cues on users’ psychological reactance, liking, trusting beliefs and compliance

ABSTRACT Research in the field of social robotics suggests that enhancing social cues in robots can elicit more social responses in users. It is however not clear how users respond socially to persuasive social robots and whether such reactions will be more pronounced when the robots feature more interactive social cues. In the current research, we examine social responses towards persuasive attempts provided by a robot featuring different numbers of interactive social cues. A laboratory experiment assessed participants’ psychological reactance, liking, trusting beliefs and compliance toward a persuasive robot that either presented users with: no interactive social cues (random head movements and random social praises), low number of interactive social cues (head mimicry), or high number of interactive social cues (head mimicry and proper timing for social praise). Results show that a persuasive robot with the highest number of interactive social cues invoked lower reactance and was liked more than the robots in the other two conditions. Furthermore, results suggest that trusting beliefs towards persuasive robots can be enhanced by utilizing praise as presented by social robots in no interactive social cues and high number of interactive social cues conditions. However, interactive social cues did not contribute to higher compliance. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

[1]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[2]  Jiangyuan Zhou,et al.  The Effects of Reciprocal Imitation on Teacher-Student Relationships and Student Learning Outcomes. , 2012 .

[3]  J. Dillard,et al.  On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication , 2005 .

[4]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  A Robotic Weight Loss Coach , 2007, AAAI.

[5]  Boris E. R. de Ruyter,et al.  Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home , 2005, Interact. Comput..

[6]  Jerome L. Myers,et al.  Research Design and Statistical Analysis , 1991 .

[7]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Effects of Robot Facial Characteristics and Gender in Persuasive Human-Robot Interaction , 2018, Front. Robot. AI.

[8]  Jaap Ham,et al.  When Artificial Social Agents Try to Persuade People: The Role of Social Agency on the Occurrence of Psychological Reactance , 2011, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[9]  Renato Paredes,et al.  Effects of Using Indirect Language by a Robot to Change Human Attitudes , 2017, HRI.

[10]  Ioannis Pavlidis,et al.  Survey of potential receptivity to robotic-assisted exercise coaching in a diverse sample of smokers and nonsmokers , 2018, PloS one.

[11]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. , 2013, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Trusting a Virtual Driver That Looks, Acts, and Thinks Like You , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  Static and Dynamic Facial Cues Differentially Affect the Consistency of Social Evaluations , 2015, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[14]  Fmf Frank Verberne,et al.  Trusting a virtual driver : similarity as a trust cue , 2015 .

[15]  Jaap Ham,et al.  A Persuasive Robot to Stimulate Energy Conservation: The Influence of Positive and Negative Social Feedback and Task Similarity on Energy-Consumption Behavior , 2013, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[16]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Toward sociable robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[17]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[18]  Guillaume Gibert,et al.  Mimicry and expressiveness of an ECA in human-agent interaction: familiarity breeds content! , 2016, Computational cognitive science.

[19]  Boris E. R. de Ruyter,et al.  Case study: bringing social intelligence into home dialogue systems , 2005, INTR.

[20]  Wendy Moyle,et al.  “She Had a Smile on Her Face as Wide as the Great Australian Bite”: A Qualitative Examination of Family Perceptions of a Therapeutic Robot and a Plush Toy , 2019, The Gerontologist.

[21]  J. Brehm,et al.  Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control , 1981 .

[22]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Does it make a difference who tells you what to do?: exploring the effect of social agency on psychological reactance , 2009, Persuasive '09.

[23]  Bodo Urban,et al.  An Ontology-Based Approach to Enable Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Worker-Cobot Agile Manufacturing , 2017, Future Internet.

[24]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[25]  Charles G. McClintock,et al.  Social motivation: A set of propositions. , 1972 .

[26]  Akihito Fujita,et al.  A preliminary study of the effects of a smile-supplement robot on behavioral and psychological symptoms of elderly people with mild impairment , 2018 .

[27]  Louise Connell,et al.  Accent imitation positively affects language attitudes , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[28]  J. Brehm.  A theory of psychological reactance. , 1981 .

[29]  Ohbyung Kwon,et al.  The Influence of Politeness Behavior on User Compliance with Social Robots in a Healthcare Service Setting , 2017, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[30]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Poker Face Influence: Persuasive Robot with Minimal Social Cues Triggers Less Psychological Reactance , 2018, 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[31]  Boris E. R. de Ruyter,et al.  Two acts of social intelligence: the effects of mimicry and social praise on the evaluation of an artificial agent , 2011, AI & SOCIETY.

[32]  Sabine Prezenski,et al.  Causes of Psychological Reactance in Human-Computer Interaction: A Literature Review and Survey , 2017, ECCE.

[33]  R. Mayer,et al.  Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice ☆ , 2005 .

[34]  D. Carnegie,et al.  How to Win Friends & Influence People , 1936 .

[35]  P. Shaver,et al.  Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  Jürgen Brandstetter.  The Power of Robot Groups with a Focus on Persuasive and Linguistic Cues , 2017 .

[37]  Taezoon Park,et al.  When stereotypes meet robots: The double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human-robot interaction , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[38]  George B Stefano,et al.  The neurobiology of pleasure, reward processes, addiction and their health implications. , 2004, Neuro endocrinology letters.

[39]  Igor M. Verner,et al.  Science Class with RoboThespian: Using a Robot Teacher to Make Science Fun and Engage Students , 2016, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[40]  Chuang Wang,et al.  Do buyers express their true assessment? Antecedents and consequences of customer praise feedback behaviour on Taobao , 2016, Internet Res..

[41]  Jaap Ham,et al.  The influence of social cues in persuasive social robots on psychological reactance and compliance , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[42]  Harri Oinas-Kukkonen,et al.  Behavior Change Support Systems: A Research Model and Agenda , 2010, PERSUASIVE.

[43]  D. Byrne.  The Attraction Paradigm , 1971 .

[44]  Johan F. Hoorn,et al.  Here Comes the Bad News: Doctor Robot Taking Over , 2017, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[45]  Nicolas Guéguen,et al.  Imitation in Mediation: Effects of the Duration of Mimicry on Reaching Agreement , 2014 .

[46]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Movement Matters: Effects of Motion and Mimicry on Perception of Similarity and Closeness in Robot-Mediated Communication , 2017, CHI.

[47]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Pardon the rude robot: Social cues diminish reactance to high controlling language , 2017, 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[48]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Socially Assistive Robot Exercise Coach: Motivating Older Adults to Engage in Physical Exercise , 2012, ISER.

[49]  Justus H. Piater,et al.  The Effects of Social Gaze in Human-Robot Collaborative Assembly , 2015, ICSR.

[50]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Tactile Interactions with a Humanoid Robot: Novel Play Scenario Implementations with Children with Autism , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[51]  Kenneth E. Andersen.  Persuasion : theory and practice , 1978 .

[52]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Trusting Digital Chameleons: The Effect of Mimicry by a Virtual Social Agent on User Trust , 2013, PERSUASIVE.

[53]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  A survey of socially interactive robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[54]  Hanafiah Yussof,et al.  Interactive Scenario Development of Robot-assisted Therapy for Cerebral Palsy , 2017 .

[55]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[56]  Sonja Rispens,et al.  The consequences of mimicry for prosocials and proselfs: Effects of social value orientation on the mimicry–liking link , 2011 .

[57]  Tomohiro Yoshikawa,et al.  Learning effect of robotic encouragement-based collaborative learning , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE).

[58]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do , 2002, UBIQ.

[59]  Korrina A Duffy,et al.  Mimicry: causes and consequences , 2015, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.

[60]  Maartje M. A. de Graaf,et al.  What Makes Robots Social?: A User's Perspective on Characteristics for Social Human-Robot Interaction , 2015, ICSR.

[61]  Matthias Scheutz,et al.  Let Me Tell You! : Investigating the Effects of Robot Communication Strategies in Advice-giving Situations based on Robot Appearance, Interaction Modality and Distance , 2014, 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).