Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Understanding Persuasive Interactions between Generative Social Agents and Humans: The Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM)

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Persuasion by generative social agents is driven by what the agent knows—about itself, the user, and the situation—and that knowledge chain determines whether a user changes their mind, the new Knowledge-based Persuasion Model argues.

desk verdict A clear and useful theoretical synthesis for persuasive generative agents; it honestly flags its own lack of empirical validation, but the abstract's promised evaluation study is missing from the text. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.11483 v2 pith:VISZXIMR submitted 2026-02-12 cs.HC cs.AI

Stephan Vonschallen , Friederike Eyssel , Theresa Schmiedel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords persuasiongenerativesocialagentsknowledge-basedmodelhuman-agentinteractionlargelanguagemodelsresponsibleAIuserattitudespersuasivebehavior
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces the Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM), a framework claiming that persuasive interactions with generative social agents follow a three-step sequence: the agent's knowledge shapes its persuasive behavior, and that behavior shapes the user's response. Knowledge is divided into self-knowledge (role, personality), user-knowledge (preferences, emotions, profile), and context-knowledge (topic, persuasive strategies, environment). If this claim is right, persuasion by autonomous agents becomes something researchers can design indirectly—by changing what the agent knows—rather than by scripting messages by hand. That matters because generative agents already advise, coach, and teach people, and the same mechanism could be used either to motivate healthy choices or to manipulate users. The KPM is proposed as a common structure for studying this process responsibly across chatbots, avatars, and social robots.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM) itself, with agent knowledge as the input stimulus. The load-bearing mechanism is the knowledge-behavior link: because generative agents produce stochastic, non-deterministic outputs, the paper treats an agent's available knowledge as the controllable stimulus that probabilistically shapes what the agent says and how it is said. This makes knowledge the practical point of intervention—by varying self-, user-, and context-knowledge through prompts, retrieval, or fine-tuning, researchers and designers are supposed to be able to move the whole persuasion chain.

What would settle it

Run a preregistered study in which the same GSA model is given two knowledge configurations that differ only in self-knowledge (e.g., 'authoritative expert' vs 'friendly peer'), with user- and context-knowledge held constant; if many repeated runs produce indistinguishable message distributions and no difference in user attitudes or compliance, the KPM's central knowledge-behavior-response claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the KPM's central claim is that the informational prerequisites of a generative social agent—not its predefined scripts—account for its persuasive behavior. Agent knowledge is the structured information a GSA internalizes and uses to generate responses, combining embedded knowledge acquired during training with situated knowledge supplied through prompts or retrieval. The model splits this knowledge into three categories: self-knowledge (the agent's role and personality), user-knowledge (what it knows about the interaction partner), and context-knowledge (topic expertise, persuasion strategies, and situational facts). These categories are claimed to drive two behavior chann

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that what a generative social agent knows can be varied cleanly—through prompts, retrieval, or fine-tuning—and that the resulting changes in agent behavior and user response can be reliably observed; the paper itself notes the model is conceptual and the specific relationships have yet to be identified empirically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Experiments can shift from pre-scripted, operator-controlled designs to manipulating knowledge configurations and observing autonomously generated messages.
  • Designers can pursue responsible persuasion by curating what an agent knows—for example giving a tutoring agent learner-specific and topic-specific information rather than scripting each motivational sentence.
  • The framework supplies shared dimensions for comparing persuasion studies across chatbots, virtual avatars, and social robots, which otherwise are studied in separate literatures.
  • In healthcare and education, the model can be used to derive knowledge-based design requirements, such as an eldercare robot using event and environment information to encourage therapy attendance.
  • Applied with safeguards, restricting sensitive knowledge such as user data could reduce manipulative persuasion, while privacy and consent measures become central when user-knowledge is used for personalization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test the paper sketches but leaves unformalized: run a mediation analysis with agent persuasive behavior as the middle step between knowledge manipulations and user response; the KPM's chain predicts that behavior carries the effect, which is falsifiable in a single study.
  • If the knowledge-behavior link holds, then the same base model should become more or less persuasive solely through its system prompt—an inexpensive intervention with immediate practical relevance beyond academia.
  • Because GSA outputs are stochastic, knowledge conditions will yield distributions of behaviors; future research should treat sampling multiple outputs per condition as a measurement practice, not as noise, to estimate the behavioral range an agent can express.
  • The model's knowledge trichotomy can likely be turned around: a user's own awareness of persuasion tactics may act as a moderator or reciprocal influence, an extension the paper names as future work rather than as part of the present framework.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM), a theoretical framework for studying persuasive interactions between generative social agents (GSAs) and human users. The KPM is organized around three sequentially related dimensions: agent knowledge (self-, user-, and context-knowledge), agent persuasive behavior (message characteristics and message delivery), and user response (attitudes and persuasion effectiveness). A fourth layer, context, is added to account for agent, task, user, and environmental influences. The paper argues that existing theories such as the ELM, HSM, Unimodel, TAM, PRAM, and PKM are insufficient for GSAs because they either focus only on the receiver or do not capture agent-specific knowledge. The manuscript synthesizes a broad literature, offers a table of preliminary indicators, and discusses implications for healthcare and education, as well as ethical risks. It is explicitly framed as a conceptual model, and the authors acknowledge that detailed operationalizations must await empirical testing.

Significance. If positioned as a hypothesis-generating framework, the KPM is a useful and timely contribution. It shifts attention from studying predefined persuasive messages to understanding how the information available to a generative agent shapes its autonomous persuasive behavior, which is a genuine gap in human-agent interaction research. The paper integrates multiple psychological and information-systems theories, provides a preliminary indicator table that can seed experimental designs, and explicitly addresses the stochasticity and ethical responsibilities of GSAs. The manuscript does not report new empirical data or code, so its value lies in conceptual synthesis, not in validation. The main weakness is that the central causal chain is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the abstract promises a 'preliminary evaluation study' that the full text does not contain. These issues are fixable with reframing and explicit hypotheses, so the framework itself remains viable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §3.5] The abstract states that 'a preliminary evaluation study ... are discussed,' but the full text contains no evaluation study. Section 3.5 instead states that operationalizations and specific relationships between the core variables 'have yet to be identified through empirical interaction studies.' This is a direct contradiction about the state of the contribution. Please either add the evaluation study/report or revise the abstract, introduction, and conclusion to describe KPM strictly as a conceptual model and research agenda. This matters because the claimed contribution changes substantially between the two framings.
  2. [§3.1; §3.5] The core sequential claim—agent knowledge impacts agent persuasive behavior impacts user response—is introduced as a hypothesis ('we hypothesize...', §3.1) and then treated as the model's foundation. The paper lists adjustability of knowledge, observability of behavior, and measurability of user response as prerequisites for future research (§3.5), and it acknowledges that GSA outputs are stochastic and 'cannot be fully anticipated based on computational means' (§3.1). No evidence is provided that distinct self-, user-, and context-knowledge configurations actually produce stable, distinguishable behavior patterns. For a conceptual paper this is acceptable if explicitly framed as a research agenda, but the current presentation overstates the level of support. Please add a concrete manipulation-check or pilot-study protocol for the first link, or clearly state that this is an open empiric
  3. [§3.5; Table 1] The KPM currently offers a taxonomy and a list of 'preliminary indicators' rather than testable hypotheses with predicted directions or boundary conditions. The paper explicitly says specific relationships 'have yet to be identified' (§3.5), which reduces the model, as presented, to a descriptive component list. To make the framework useful for guiding experiments, please add a hypotheses subsection that specifies, for example, which knowledge categories are expected to affect which message characteristics or delivery features, and under what contextual conditions. If the authors prefer to position KPM as a first-step taxonomy, that should be stated explicitly and the title/abstract should avoid implying a validated process model.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§2] The citation of Friestad and Wright appears as '[60][]' with an empty bracket; the reference formatting needs correction.
  2. [§2] The sentence 'As such, they are integrated within the same reasoning process. and persuasion emerges from...' contains a sentence-boundary typo and should be revised.
  3. [§3.1] Apostrophe error: 'a GSAs domain-specific expertise' should be 'a GSA's domain-specific expertise.'
  4. [§3.3] Possessive error: 'an agents persuasion attempt' should be 'an agent's persuasion attempt.'
  5. [§3.5] Typo: 'predications and impacts' should be 'predictions and impacts.' Also, 'T able 1' should be 'Table 1.'
  6. [§3.5] The parenthetical section references in the sentence beginning 'preliminary indicators of agent knowledge...' point to Sections 3.2–3.5, but the actual sections are 3.1–3.4. Please correct these references to match the text.
  7. [Figures] The manuscript mentions Figures 1–3, but the submitted full text contains only figure captions without the actual figures. Ensure the final version includes the diagrams, as the KPM figure and the PKM comparison are referenced in the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity; mild non-load-bearing self-citation and an abstract-promised evaluation study absent from the full text.

full rationale

The KPM is a conceptual process model (agent knowledge -> agent persuasive behavior -> user response) with no equations, fitted parameters, or quantitative predictions that could reduce to its inputs by construction. The three knowledge subcategories are traced to the external Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright [60]) and to generative-AI literature ([49,61]), even though the sentence 'three subcategories of agent knowledge have been identified: self-knowledge, user-knowledge, and context-knowledge [21, 52]' cites the authors' own prior work; these self-citations are corroborating rather than the sole or load-bearing support. The paper explicitly states that operationalizations 'have yet to be identified through empirical interaction studies' (Section 3.5), so it does not present a fitted result as a prediction. The abstract's promised 'preliminary evaluation study' does not appear in the full text, and Section 3.5 instead concedes that empirical validation is outstanding; this is an evidence/completeness gap, not a circularity. The only mild signal is non-load-bearing self-citation, consistent with a score of 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The KPM rests on domain assumptions about the transferability of human persuasion theories to GSAs and about the controllability of stochastic generative outputs. No free parameters are fitted because the paper contains no quantitative model or data. The only invented entity is the KPM's central construct, agent knowledge, which is plausible but lacks direct validation here.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A GSA's knowledge can be partitioned into self-, user-, and context-knowledge.
    Section 3.1 presents this taxonomy as the first dimension of the model; the categories are adapted from prior work and are not derived or empirically validated here.
  • domain assumption Psychological theories of human persuasion (ELM, HSM, Unimodel, TAM) transfer to interactions with generative social agents.
    Section 2 applies these human processing models to GSA persuasion; no evidence is provided that human processing of GSA messages is isomorphic to human-to-human persuasion.
  • domain assumption Agent knowledge can be experimentally adjusted through prompting, RAG, or fine-tuning in ways that reliably change persuasive behavior.
    Section 3.5 lists this as a prerequisite, but the paper also states GSA outputs are stochastic and not fully predictable (Section 3.1), making reliable manipulation an open empirical premise.
  • domain assumption The Persuasion Knowledge Model's constructs remain meaningful when transferred from human agents to GSAs.
    Sections 2 and 3.1 extend PKM's target and topic knowledge to user- and context-knowledge; the paper itself notes PKM 'doesn’t account for attributes that are unique to GSAs', so the mapping is assumed rather than shown.
invented entities (1)
  • Agent knowledge as self-, user-, and context-knowledge
    purpose: Explanatory construct intended to link a GSA's informational state to its persuasive behavior and ultimately to user response.
    No direct measurement or manipulation evidence is provided in this paper. The proposed experiments are described only generally, with no predicted effect sizes or validated instruments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding Persuasive Interactions between Generative Social Agents and Humans: The Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VISZXIMR

@misc{pith2026260211483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding Persuasive Interactions between Generative Social Agents and Humans: The Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VISZXIMR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.11483}
}
read the original abstract

Generative social agents (GSAs) use artificial intelligence to autonomously communicate with human users in a natural and adaptive manner. Currently, there is a lack of theorizing regarding interactions with GSAs, and likewise, few guidelines exist for studying how they influence user attitudes and behaviors. Consequently, we propose the Knowledge-based Persuasion Model (KPM) as a novel theoretical framework. According to the KPM, a GSA's self-, user-, and context-knowledge drives its persuasive behavior, which in turn shapes attitudes and behaviors of a responding human user. Building on existing research, the model offers a structured approach to studying interactions with GSAs, supporting the development of agents that motivate rather than manipulate human users. Accordingly, the KPM encourages the integration of responsible GSAs that adhere to social norms and ethical standards with the goal of increasing user wellbeing. A preliminary evaluation study, as well as implications of the KPM for research and application domains such as healthcare and education are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Knowledge-Based Design Requirements for Generative Social Robots in Higher Education

    cs.HC 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Twelve semistructured interviews yield twelve knowledge-based design requirements for tutoring generative social robots, grouped into self-knowledge, user-knowledge, and context-knowledge categories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, And Transparency, pp

    Jones, C.R., Rathi, I., Taylor, S., Bergen, B.K.: People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test. In: Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, And Transparency, pp. 1615–1639. ACM, Athens Greece (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732108

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Minds and Machines35(1), 8 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11023-025-09711-6

    Restrepo Echavarr ´ ıa, R.: ChatGPT-4 in the Turing test. Minds and Machines35(1), 8 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11023-025-09711-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-025-09711-6 2025

  3. [3]

    Applied Clinical Informatics16(04), 892–902 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1055/ a-2647-1210 13

    Bautista, J.R., Herbert, D., Farmer, M., De Torres, R.Q., Soriano, G.P., Ronquillo, C.E.: Health consumers’ use and perceptions of health information from generative artificial intelligence chat- bots: A scoping review. Applied Clinical Informatics16(04), 892–902 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1055/ a-2647-1210 13

    2025

  4. [4]

    Kuznetsova, E., Makhortykh, M., Vziatysheva, V., Stolze, M., Baghumyan, A., Urman, A.: In gen- erative AI we trust: Can chatbots effectively verify political information? Journal of Computational Social Science8(1), 15 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-024-00338-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s42001-024-00338-8 2025

  5. [5]

    First Monday (2024) https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v29i1.13541

    Skjuve, M., Brandtzaeg, P.B., Følstad, A.: Why do people use ChatGPT? Exploring user motivations for generative conversational AI. First Monday (2024) https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v29i1.13541

    doi:10.5210/fm.v29i1.13541 2024

  6. [6]

    AI5(3), 1357–1376 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/ai5030065

    Luther, T., Kimmerle, J., Cress, U.: Teaming up with an AI: Exploring human–AI collaboration in a writing scenario with ChatGPT. AI5(3), 1357–1376 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/ai5030065

    doi:10.3390/ai5030065 2024

  7. [7]

    Frontiers in Computer Science7, 1672735 (2025) https://doi.org/10

    Wang, N., Kim, H., Peng, J., Wang, J.: Exploring creativity in human–AI co-creation: A comparative study across design experience. Frontiers in Computer Science7, 1672735 (2025) https://doi.org/10. 3389/fcomp.2025.1672735

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society8(2), 1153–1153 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i2

    Guingrich, R.E., Graziano, M.S.A.: A longitudinal randomized control study of companion chatbot use: Anthropomorphism and its mediating role on social impacts. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society8(2), 1153–1153 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i2. 36618

    doi:10.1609/aies.v8i2 2025

Show all 139 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 29(1), 52–62 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000400

    Altay, S., Hacquin, A.-S., Chevallier, C., Mercier, H.: Information delivered by a chatbot has a positive impact on COVID-19 vaccines attitudes and intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 29(1), 52–62 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000400

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Computers in Human Behavior140, 107600 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2022.107600

    Pentina, I., Hancock, T., Xie, T.: Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed- method study of replika. Computers in Human Behavior140, 107600 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2022.107600

    2023

  3. [11]

    In: 2024 1st International Conference on Trends in Engineering Systems and Technologies (ICTEST), pp

    John, K.S., Roy, G.A., S, B.P.: LLM based 3D avatar assistant. In: 2024 1st International Conference on Trends in Engineering Systems and Technologies (ICTEST), pp. 1–5. IEEE, Kochi, India (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTEST60614.2024.10576146

    2024

  4. [12]

    In: Degen, H., Ntoa, S., Moallem, A

    Liu, Y., Siau, K.L.: Human-AI interaction and AI avatars. In: Degen, H., Ntoa, S., Moallem, A. (eds.) HCI International 2023 – Late Breaking Papers vol. 14059, pp. 120–130. Springer, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48057-7 8

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    IEEE Access13, 209950–209964 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2025.3642635

    Sun, T.-J., Chae, Y., Choi, K., An, S., Huh, E.-N.: LLM-driven active behavioral forgetting for AI Avatar in metaverse environments. IEEE Access13, 209950–209964 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2025.3642635

    2025

  6. [14]

    In: 2024 International Congress on Human-Computer Inter- action, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA), pp

    Jahangiri, M.M., Rahmani, P.: Balancing game satisfaction and resource efficiency: LLM and pursuit learning automata for NPC dialogues. In: 2024 International Congress on Human-Computer Inter- action, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA), pp. 1–6. IEEE, Istanbul, Turki...

    2024

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp

    Park, J.S., O’Brien, J., Cai, C.J., Morris, M.R., Liang, P., Bernstein, M.S.: Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 1–22. ACM, San Francisco CA USA (2023). htt...

    2023

  8. [16]

    arXiv (2024)

    Rao, S., Xu, W., Xu, M., Leandro, J., Lobb, K., DesGarennes, G., Brockett, C., Dolan, B.: Col- laborative Quest Completion with LLM-driven Non-Player Characters in Minecraft. arXiv (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.03460

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp

    Billing, E., Ros´ en, J., Lamb, M.: Language models for human-robot interaction. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 905–906. ACM, Stockholm Sweden (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3568294.3580040

    2023

  10. [18]

    Australian Robotics & Automation Association, ??? (2023)

    Chen, X., Luo, K., Gee, T., Nejati, M.: Does ChatGPT and Whisper make humanoid robots more relatable? In: Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation ACRA 2023. Australian Robotics & Automation Association, ??? (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    In: Degen, H., Ntoa, S

    Esteban-Lozano, I., Castro-Gonz´ alez, ´A., Mart ´ ınez, P.: Using a LLM-based conversational agent in the social robot mini. In: Degen, H., Ntoa, S. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence In HCI vol. 14736, pp. 15–26. Springer, Cham (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60615-1 2

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    In: Bravo, J., Urz´ aiz, G

    Onorati, T., Castro-Gonz´ alez,´A., Del Valle, J.C., D ´ ıaz, P., Castillo, J.C.: Creating personalized verbal human-robot interactions using LLM with the robot Mini. In: Bravo, J., Urz´ aiz, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing & ...

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, pp

    Vonschallen, S., Finsler, L.J.C., Schmiedel, T., Eyssel, F.: Exploring persuasive interactions with generative social robots - An experimental framework. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, pp. 542–544. ACM, Yokohama Japan (2026). h...

    2026

  14. [22]

    In: Følstad, A., Araujo, T., Papadopoulos, S., Law, E.L.-C., Luger, E., Goodwin, M., Hobert, S., Brandtzaeg, P.B

    Hanschmann, L., Gnewuch, U., Maedche, A.: Saleshat: A LLM-based social robot for human-like sales conversations. In: Følstad, A., Araujo, T., Papadopoulos, S., Law, E.L.-C., Luger, E., Goodwin, M., Hobert, S., Brandtzaeg, P.B. (eds.) Chatbot Research and Design vol. 14524, pp....

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Electronic Commerce Research and Applications71, 101496 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.elerap.2025.101496

    Zhu, Y., Liang, J., Zhao, Y.: Expert or partner: The matching effect of AI chatbot roles in different service contexts. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications71, 101496 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.elerap.2025.101496

    2025

  16. [24]

    In: 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), pp

    Spitale, M., Axelsson, M., Gunes, H.: Appropriateness of LLM-equipped robotic well-being coach language in the workplace: A qualitative evaluation. In: 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), pp. 1571–1578. IEEE, Pasadena, ...

    2024

  17. [25]

    PLOS ONE17(6), 0270255 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal

    Terblanche, N., Molyn, J., De Haan, E., Nilsson, V.O.: Comparing artificial intelligence and human coaching goal attainment efficacy. PLOS ONE17(6), 0270255 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0270255

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice17(2), 189–206 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2024

    Terblanche, N.H.D., Van Heerden, M., Hunt, R.: The influence of an artificial intelligence chat- bot coach assistant on the human coach-client working alliance. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice17(2), 189–206 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1080/175...

    2024

  19. [27]

    AI & SOCIETY (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00146-025-02536-y

    Fulsher, A., Pagkratidou, M., Kendeou, P.: GenAI and misinformation in education: A systematic scoping review of opportunities and challenges. AI & SOCIETY (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00146-025-02536-y

    2025

  20. [28]

    AI and Ethics6(1), 72 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00916-0

    Ganguly, A., Mehjabin, N., Malik, A., Johri, A.: Conversational AI agents in education: An umbrella review of current utilization, challenges, and future directions for ethical and responsible use. AI and Ethics6(1), 72 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00916-0

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    Robotics10(1), 47 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/ robotics10010047

    Holland, J., Kingston, L., McCarthy, C., Armstrong, E., O’Dwyer, P., Merz, F., McConnell, M.: Service robots in the healthcare sector. Robotics10(1), 47 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/ robotics10010047

    2021

  22. [30]

    Nature Machine Intelligence6(12), 1418–1420 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00944-1

    Qiu, J., Lam, K., Li, G., Acharya, A., Wong, T.Y., Darzi, A., Yuan, W., Topol, E.J.: LLM-based agentic systems in medicine and healthcare. Nature Machine Intelligence6(12), 1418–1420 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00944-1

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Digital Society4(1), 7 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s44206-025-00161-2

    Ranisch, R., Haltaufderheide, J.: Rapid integration of LLMs in healthcare raises ethical concerns: An investigation into deceptive patterns in social robots. Digital Society4(1), 7 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s44206-025-00161-2

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    Scientific Reports15(1), 43818 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-30783-y

    H¨ olbling, L., Maier, S., Feuerriegel, S.: A meta-analysis of the persuasive power of large language models. Scientific Reports15(1), 43818 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-30783-y

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7(CSCW1), 1–29 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1145/3579592

    Karinshak, E., Liu, S.X., Park, J.S., Hancock, J.T.: Working with AI to persuade: Examining a large language model’s ability to generate pro-vaccination messages. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7(CSCW1), 1–29 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1145/3579592

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Nature Human Behaviour (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02194-6

    Salvi, F., Horta Ribeiro, M., Gallotti, R., West, R.: On the conversational persuasiveness of GPT-4. Nature Human Behaviour (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02194-6

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies200, 103514 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103514

    Meyer, S., Elsweiler, D.: LLM-based conversational agents for behaviour change support: A ran- domised controlled trial examining efficacy, safety, and the role of user behaviour. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies200, 103514 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 100197 (2025) https://doi.org/10

    Singh, S.U., Namin, A.S.: The influence of persuasive techniques on large language models: A scenario- based study. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 100197 (2025) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.chbah.2025.100197

    2025

  29. [37]

    Computer Life 12(2), 53–56 (2024) https://doi.org/10.54097/taqbjh83

    Zhou, R.: Risks of discrimination violence and unlawful actions in LLM-driven robots. Computer Life 12(2), 53–56 (2024) https://doi.org/10.54097/taqbjh83

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Routledge, New York, NY (2018)

    Gass, R.H., Seiter, J.S.: Persuasion: Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining, Sixth edition edn. Routledge, New York, NY (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Journal of Personality82(3), 250–264 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12049

    Oreg, S., Sverdlik, N.: Source personality and persuasiveness: Big five predispositions to being per- suasive and the role of message involvement. Journal of Personality82(3), 250–264 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12049

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    International Journal of Social Robotics14(6), 1339–1378 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12369-022-00870-5

    Liu, B., Tetteroo, D., Markopoulos, P.: A systematic review of experimental work on persuasive social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics14(6), 1339–1378 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12369-022-00870-5

    2022

  33. [41]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research24(10), 39243 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.2196/39243

    Martinengo, L., Jabir, A.I., Goh, W.W.T., Lo, N.Y.W., Ho, M.-H.R., Kowatsch, T., Atun, R., Michie, S., Tudor Car, L.: Conversational agents in health care: Scoping review of their Behavior change techniques and underpinning theory. Journal of Medical Internet Research24(10), 3...

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series3(1), 401–404 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1609/ aaaiss.v3i1.31245

    Shi, Z., Landrum, E., O’Connell, A., Kian, M., Pinto-Alva, L., Shrestha, K., Zhu, X., Matari´ c, M.J.: How can large language models enable better socially assistive human-robot interaction: A brief survey. Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series3(1), 401–404 (2024) https://d...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 119–136 (2012) https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Riek

    Riek, L.: Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: A systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 119–136 (2012) https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Riek

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    In: 2009 9th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pp

    Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., Schwaiger, D., Altmaninger, M., Buchner, R., Tscheligi, M.: User experience evaluation with a Wizard of Oz approach: Technical and methodological considerations. In: 2009 9th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pp. 303–308. IEEE, Par...

    2009

  37. [45]

    Bender, E.M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., Shmitchell, S.: On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, And Transparency, pp. 610–623. ACM, Virtual Event Canada (2021). https:/...

    2021

  38. [46]

    Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, Mass (2010)

    Akerkar, R., Sajja, P.: Knowledge-Based Systems. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, Mass (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence8, 1609097 (2025) https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1609097 15

    Herrera-Poyatos, D., Pel´ aez-Gonz´ alez, C., Zuheros, C., Herrera-Poyatos, A., Tejedor, V., Herrera, F., Montes, R.: An overview of model uncertainty and variability in LLM-based sentiment analysis: Challenges, mitigation strategies, and the role of explainability. Frontiers ...

    2025

  40. [48]

    In: IEEE Transactions on Technology And Society

    Berengueres, J.: How to regulate large language models for responsible AI. In: IEEE Transactions on Technology And Society. 2, vol. 5, pp. 191–197 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2024.3403681

    2024

  41. [49]

    In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023

    Wang, Y., Li, P., Sun, M., Liu, Y.: Self-knowledge guided retrieval augmentation for large language models. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics, ??? (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    In: PLoP ’23: Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs

    White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., Elnashar, A., Spencer-Smith, J., Schmidt, D.C.: A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with ChatGPT. In: PLoP ’23: Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. The Hillsid...

    2023

  43. [51]

    (Manuscript Submitted For Publication)

    Vonschallen, S., Oberle, D., Schmiedel, T., Eyssel, F.: Knowledge-based design requirements for generative social robots in higher education. (Manuscript Submitted For Publication)

  44. [52]

    In: Staffa, M., Cabibihan, J.-J., Siciliano, B., Ge, S.S., Bodenhagen, L., Tapus, A., Rossi, S., Cavallo, F., Fiorini, L., Matarese, M., He, H

    Vonschallen, S., Zumthor, E., Simon, M., Schmiedel, T., Eyssel, F.: Knowledge-based design require- ments for persuasive generative social robots in eldercare. In: Staffa, M., Cabibihan, J.-J., Siciliano, B., Ge, S.S., Bodenhagen, L., Tapus, A., Rossi, S., Cavallo, F., Fiorini...

    2026

  45. [53]

    In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology vol

    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology vol. 19, pp. 123–205. Elsevier, ??? (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-2601(08)60214-2

    1986

  46. [54]

    In: Uleman, J.S., Bargh, J.A

    Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., Eagly, A.H.: Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman, J.S., Bargh, J.A. (eds.) Unintended Thought, pp. 212–252. The Guilford Press, ??? (1989)

    1989

  47. [55]

    Psychological Inquiry10(2), 83–109 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PL100201

    Kruglanski, A.W., Thompson, E.P.: Persuasion by a single route: A view from the Unimodel. Psychological Inquiry10(2), 83–109 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PL100201

    1999 doi

  48. [56]

    In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp

    Irfan, B., Kennedy, J., Lemaignan, S., Papadopoulos, F., Senft, E., Belpaeme, T.: Social psychol- ogy and human-robot interaction: An uneasy marriage. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 13–20. ACM, Chicago IL USA (2018)....

    2018

  49. [57]

    Management Science35(8), 982–1003 (1989) 2632151

    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8), 982–1003 (1989) 2632151

    1989

  50. [58]

    Frontiers in Computer Science2, 10 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00010

    Oyibo, K., Vassileva, J.: HOMEX: Persuasive Technology Acceptance Model and the moderating effect of culture. Frontiers in Computer Science2, 10 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00010

    2020

  51. [59]

    International Journal of Social Robotics12(5), 1075–1092 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00611-1

    Ghazali, A.S., Ham, J., Barakova, E., Markopoulos, P.: Persuasive robots acceptance model (PRAM): Roles of social responses within the acceptance model of persuasive robots. International Journal of Social Robotics12(5), 1075–1092 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00611-1

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Journal of Consumer Research21(1), 1–31 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1086/209380

    Friestad, M., Wright, P.: The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research21(1), 1–31 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1086/209380

    1994 doi

  53. [61]

    Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield- Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., Johnston, S., El-Showk, S., Jones, A., Elhage, N., Hume, T., Chen, A., Bai, Y., Bowman, S., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Hernandez, D., Jacob...

    2022 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    In: Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pp

    Bhandari, P., Naseem, U., Datta, A., Fay, N., Nasim, M.: Evaluating personality traits in large language models: Insights from psychological questionnaires. In: Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pp. 868–872. ACM, Sydney NSW Australia (2025). https://doi....

    2025

  55. [63]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Personalization of Generative AI Systems (PERSONALIZE 2024), pp

    Frisch, I., Giulianelli, M.: LLM agents in interaction: Measuring personality consistency and linguistic alignment in interacting populations of large language models. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Personalization of Generative AI Systems (PERSONALIZE 2024), pp. 102–1...

    2024

  56. [64]

    In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pp

    Jiang, H., Zhang, X., Cao, X., Breazeal, C., Roy, D., Kabbara, J.: PersonaLLM: Investigating the ability of large language models to express personality traits. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pp. 3605–3627. Association for Computatio...

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    Association for Computational Linguistics.NAACL 2025, 8397–8437 (2025) https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.469 arXiv:2406.14703 [cs]

    Lee, S., Lim, S., Han, S., Oh, G., Chae, H., Chung, J., Kim, M., Kwak, B.-w., Lee, Y., Lee, D., Yeo, J., Yu, Y.: Do LLMs have distinct and consistent personality? TRAIT: Personality testset designed for LLMs with psychometrics. Association for Computational Linguistics.NAACL 2...

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    arXiv (2023)

    Serapio-Garc ´ ıa, G., Safdari, M., Crepy, C., Sun, L., Fitz, S., Romero, P., Abdulhai, M., Faust, A., Matari´ c, M.: Personality Traits in Large Language Models. arXiv (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2307.00184

    2023 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp

    Shao, Y., Li, L., Dai, J., Qiu, X.: Character-LLM: A trainable agent for role-playing. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 13153–13187. Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Scientific Reports15(1), 519 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-84109-5

    Wang, Y., Zhao, J., Ones, D.S., He, L., Xu, X.: Evaluating the ability of large language models to emu- late personality. Scientific Reports15(1), 519 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-84109-5

    2025 doi

  61. [69]

    arXiv (2024)

    Weng, Y., He, S., Liu, K., Liu, S., Zhao, J.: ControlLM: Crafting Diverse Personalities for Language 16 Models. arXiv (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.10151

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    arXiv (2024)

    Pauli, A.B., Augenstein, I., Assent, I.: Measuring and Benchmarking Large Language Models’ Capabilities to Generate Persuasive Language. arXiv (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Detroit, Michigan, USA (2025)

    Banna, T.T., Rahman, S., Tareq, M.: Beyond words: Integrating personality traits and context- driven gestures in human-robot interactions. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Detroit, Michigan, USA (2025)

    2025

  64. [72]

    Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2(1), 100044 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100044

    Heppner, H., Schiffhauer, B., Seelmeyer, U.: Conveying chatbot personality through conversational cues in social media messages. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2(1), 100044 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100044

    2024

  65. [73]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI7, 591448 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.591448

    Babel, F., Kraus, J.M., Baumann, M.: Development and testing of psychological conflict resolution strategies for assertive robots to resolve human–robot goal conflict. Frontiers in Robotics and AI7, 591448 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.591448

    2021

  66. [74]

    In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp

    Chidambaram, V., Chiang, Y.-H., Mutlu, B.: Designing persuasive robots: How robots might per- suade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 293–300. ACM, Boston Massachusetts...

    2012

  67. [75]

    In: Salichs, M.A., Ge, S.S., Barakova, E.I., Cabibihan, J.-J., Wagner, A.R., Castro-Gonz´ alez,´A., He, H

    Paradeda, R., Ferreira, M.J., Oliveira, R., Martinho, C., Paiva, A.: What makes a good robotic advisor? The role of assertiveness in human-robot interaction. In: Salichs, M.A., Ge, S.S., Barakova, E.I., Cabibihan, J.-J., Wagner, A.R., Castro-Gonz´ alez,´A., He, H. (eds.) Socia...

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    In: 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp

    Thomas, J., Vaughan, R.: After you: Doorway negotiation for human-robot and robot-robot Inter- action. In: 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 3387–3394. IEEE, Madrid (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2018.8594034

    2018

  69. [77]

    Scientific Reports14(1), 4692 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-024-53755-0

    Matz, S.C., Teeny, J.D., Vaid, S.S., Peters, H., Harari, G.M., Cerf, M.: The potential of generative AI for personalized persuasion at scale. Scientific Reports14(1), 4692 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-024-53755-0

    2024

  70. [78]

    Education and Information Technologies30(1), 297–312 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10639-024-12888-5

    Baillifard, A., Gabella, M., Lavenex, P.B., Martarelli, C.S.: Effective learning with a personal AI tutor: A case study. Education and Information Technologies30(1), 297–312 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10639-024-12888-5

    2025 doi

  71. [79]

    International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education35(5), 3049–3070 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00491-9

    Tasdelen, O., Bodemer, D.: Generative AI in the classroom: Effects of context-personalized learning material and tasks on motivation and performance. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education35(5), 3049–3070 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00491-9

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation And Personalization, pp

    Lubos, S., Tran, T.N.T., Felfernig, A., Polat Erdeniz, S., Le, V.-M.: LLM-generated explanations for recommender systems. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation And Personalization, pp. 276–285. ACM, Cagliari Italy (2024). https://doi.o...

    2024

  73. [81]

    In: Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2024)

    Gao, G., Taymanov, A., Salinas, E., Mineiro, P., Misra, D.: Aligning LLM agents by learning latent preference from user edits. In: Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    In: 2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Lai, P., Zhong, W., Qin, Y., Ren, X., Wang, B., Li, G.: LLM-driven multimodal and multi-identity lis- tening head generation. In: 2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 10656–10666. IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA (2025). https://doi.org/10.11...

    2025

  75. [83]

    In: 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp

    Sun, X., Zhang, Y., Tang, X., Bedi, A.S., Bera, A.: TrustNavGPT: Modeling uncertainty to improve trustworthiness of audio-guided LLM-based robot navigation. In: 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 8794–8801. IEEE, Abu Dhabi, U...

    2024

  76. [84]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pp

    Liu, C., Xie, Z., Zhao, S., Zhou, J., Xu, T., Li, M., Chen, E.: Speak from heart: An emotion- guided LLM-based multimodal method for emotional dialogue generation. In: Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pp. 533–542. ACM, Phuket Thailand (...

    2024

  77. [85]

    In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning ICML’24, pp

    Khan, A., Hughes, J., Valentine, D., Ruis, L., Sachan, K., Radhakrishnan, A., Grefenstette, E., Bowman, S.R., Rockt¨ aschel, T., Perez, E.: Debating with more persuasive LLMs leads to more truthful answers. In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learni...

    2024

  78. [86]

    Journal of Advertising49(2), 195–201 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367

    Hoeken, H., Hornikx, J., Linders, Y.: The importance and ase of normative criteria to manipulate argument quality. Journal of Advertising49(2), 195–201 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367. 2019.1663317

    2020

  79. [87]

    In: Dillard, J.P., Shen, L

    Shen, L., Bigsby, E.: The effects of message features. In: Dillard, J.P., Shen, L. (eds.) The Sage Hand- book of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, Second edition edn. Sage Publications, Inc, ??? (2013)

    2013

  80. [88]

    Journal of English for Academic Purposes17, 12–23 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.006

    Stapleton, P., Wu, Y.A.: Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes17, 12–23 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.006

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    Cambridge University Press, ??? (2003)

    Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, ??? (2003). https: //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005

    2003 doi

  82. [90]

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 17 21(1), 73–85 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90007-1

    Wood, W., Kallgren, C.A., Preisler, R.M.: Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 17 21(1), 73–85 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90007-1

    1985 doi

  83. [91]

    Argumentation18(3), 295–323 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000046707.68172.35

    Schellens, P.J., De Jong, M.: Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation18(3), 295–323 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000046707.68172.35

    2004

  84. [92]

    Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology76(2), 192–199 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.192

    Davis, B.P., Knowles, E.S.: A disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology76(2), 192–199 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.192

    1999 doi

  85. [93]

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology4(2), 195–202 (1966) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552

    Freedman, J.L., Fraser, S.C.: Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology4(2), 195–202 (1966) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552

    1966 doi

  86. [94]

    Frontiers in Psychology 12, 664160 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664160

    O’Keefe, D.J., Hoeken, H.: Message design choices don’t make much difference to persuasiveness and can’t be counted on — not even when moderating conditions are specified. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 664160 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664160

    2021

  87. [95]

    In: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp

    Baroni, I., Nalin, M., Coti Zelati, M., Oleari, E., Sanna, A.: Designing motivational robot: How robots might motivate children to eat fruits and vegetables. In: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 796–801. IEEE, Edinburgh, U...

    2014

  88. [96]

    In: Chen, J.Y.C., Fragomeni, G

    Virtual, augmented and mixed reality. In: Chen, J.Y.C., Fragomeni, G. (eds.) Applications and Case Studies:. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11575. Springer, Orlando, FL, USA, (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21565-1

    2019 doi

  89. [97]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI5, 73 (2018) https://doi

    Ghazali, A.S., Ham, J., Barakova, E.I., Markopoulos, P.: Effects of robot facial characteristics and gender in persuasive human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI5, 73 (2018) https://doi. org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00073

    2018

  90. [98]

    In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp

    Ham, J., Midden, C.: A robot that says bad!: Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 265–266. ACM, La Jolla California USA (2009). https://doi....

    2009

  91. [99]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 7(4), 479–487 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0280-4

    Ham, J., Cuijpers, R.H., Cabibihan, J.-J.: Combining robotic persuasive strategies: The persuasive power of a storytelling robot that uses gazing and gestures. International Journal of Social Robotics 7(4), 479–487 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0280-4

    2015 doi

  92. [100]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies62(2), 267–279 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.003

    Shinozawa, K., Naya, F., Yamato, J., Kogure, K.: Differences in effect of robot and screen agent rec- ommendations on human decision-making. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies62(2), 267–279 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.003

    2005 doi

  93. [101]

    Computers in Human Behavior87, 58–65 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.016

    Ghazali, A.S., Ham, J., Barakova, E., Markopoulos, P.: The influence of social cues in persuasive social robots on psychological reactance and compliance. Computers in Human Behavior87, 58–65 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.016

    2018 doi

  94. [102]

    In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction (HRI), pp

    Admoni, H., Weng, T., Hayes, B., Scassellati, B.: Robot nonverbal behavior improves task perfor- mance in difficult collaborations. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 51–58. IEEE, Christchurch, New Zealand (2016). https://doi...

    2016

  95. [103]

    Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2(1), 100061 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100061

    Boos, A., Schauer, T., Arndt, E., Bengler, K.: (Un-)persuasive robots: Exploring the effect of anthro- pomorphic cues on the foot-in-the-door effect across three experimental studies. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2(1), 100061 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.c...

    2024

  96. [104]

    International Journal of Social Robotics6(2), 163–171 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0205-z

    Ham, J., Midden, C.J.H.: A persuasive robot to stimulate energy conservation: The influence of pos- itive and negative social feedback and task similarity on energy-consumption behavior. International Journal of Social Robotics6(2), 163–171 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s1236...

    2014 doi

  97. [106]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters6(2), 1793–1800 (2021) https://doi.org/10

    Saunderson, S., Nejat, G.: Robots asking for favors: The effects of directness and familiarity on persuasive HRI. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters6(2), 1793–1800 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1109/LRA.2021.3060369

    2021

  98. [107]

    IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics52(1), 641–653 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020

    Saunderson, S., Nejat, G.: Investigating strategies for robot persuasion in social human–robot interac- tion. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics52(1), 641–653 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020. 2987463

    2022 doi

  99. [108]

    International Journal of Social Robotics15(9-10), 1683–1701 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01056-3

    Spatola, N., Wudarczyk, O.A., Nomura, T., Cherif, E.: Attitudes towards robots measure (ARM): A new measurement tool aggregating previous scales assessing attitudes toward robots. International Journal of Social Robotics15(9-10), 1683–1701 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369...

    2023 doi

  100. [109]

    Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal23(3), 253–263 (1995) https://doi.org/10

    Mehrabian, A., Stefl, C.A.: Basic temperament components of loneliness, shyness, and conformity. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal23(3), 253–263 (1995) https://doi.org/10. 2224/sbp.1995.23.3.253

    1995

  101. [110]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp

    Kim, C.Y., Lee, C.P., Mutlu, B.: Understanding large-language model (LLM)-powered human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 371–380. ACM, Boulder CO USA (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634966

    2024

  102. [111]

    In: 2025 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp

    Sonlu, S., Bendiksen, B., Durupinar, F., G¨ ud¨ ukbay, U.: Effects of embodiment and personality in LLM-based conversational agents. In: 2025 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 718–728. IEEE, Saint Malo, France (2025). https://doi.org/10.1109/VR59...

    2025

  103. [112]

    ACM Transactions on Human- Robot Interaction13(4), 1–27 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1145/3659062

    Calvo-Barajas, N., Akkuzu, A., Castellano, G.: Balancing human likeness in social robots: Impact on children’s lexical alignment and self-disclosure for trust assessment. ACM Transactions on Human- Robot Interaction13(4), 1–27 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1145/3659062

    2024 doi

  104. [113]

    Frontiers in Psychology12, 625713 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg

    Haring, K.S., Satterfield, K.M., Tossell, C.C., De Visser, E.J., Lyons, J.R., Mancuso, V.F., Finomore, 18 V.S., Funke, G.J.: Robot authority in human-robot teaming: Effects of human-likeness and physical embodiment on compliance. Frontiers in Psychology12, 625713 (2021) https:...

    2021

  105. [114]

    In: 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp

    Hashemian, M., Paiva, A., Mascarenhas, S., Santos, P.A., Prada, R.: The power to persuade: A study of social power in human-robot interaction. In: 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 1–8. IEEE, New Delhi, India (20...

    2019

  106. [115]

    authoritative style

    Metzger, L., Miller, L., Baumann, M., Kraus, J.: Empowering calibrated (dis-)trust in conversational agents: A user study on the persuasive power of limitation disclaimers vs. authoritative style. In: Pro- ceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p...

    2024

  107. [116]

    Science Robotics6(58), 5186 (2021) https://doi

    Saunderson, S., Nejat, G.: Persuasive robots should avoid authority: The effects of formal and real authority on persuasion in human-robot interaction. Science Robotics6(58), 5186 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1126/scirobotics.abd5186

    2021 doi

  108. [117]

    Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence8, 1664303 (2025) https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1664303

    ´Alvarez-Mart ´ ınez, F.J., Esteban, L., Frungillo, L., Butassi, E., Zambon, A., Herranz-L´ opez, M., Aranda, M., Pollastro, F., Tixier, A.S., Garcia-Perez, J.V., Arr´ aez-Rom´ an, D., Ross, A., Mena, P., Edrada-Ebel, R.A., Lyng, J., Micol, V., Borr´ as-Rocher, F., Barraj´ on-...

    2025

  109. [118]

    Natural Language Processing Journal4, 100024 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100024

    De Wynter, A., Wang, X., Sokolov, A., Gu, Q., Chen, S.-Q.: An evaluation on large language model outputs: Discourse and memorization. Natural Language Processing Journal4, 100024 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100024

    2023

  110. [119]

    International Journal of Social Robotics9(5), 745–753 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0422-y

    Stanton, C.J., Stevens, C.J.: Don’t stare at me: The impact of a humanoid robot’s gaze upon trust during a cooperative human–robot visual task. International Journal of Social Robotics9(5), 745–753 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0422-y

    2017 doi

  111. [120]

    In: Beetz, M., Johnston, B., Williams, M.-A

    Stanton, C.J., Stevens, C.J.: Robot pressure: The impact of robot eye gaze and lifelike bodily move- ments upon decision-making and trust. In: Beetz, M., Johnston, B., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) Social Robotics vol. 8755, pp. 330–339. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007...

    2014 doi

  112. [121]

    In: 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing, pp

    Castellano, G., Leite, I., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., Paiva, A., McOwan, P.W.: Detecting engagement in HRI: An exploration of social and task-based context. In: 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Compu...

    2012 doi

  113. [122]

    In: 2020 29th IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp

    Hashemian, M., Couto, M., Mascarenhas, S., Paiva, A., Santos, P.A., Prada, R.: Investigating Reward/Punishment Strategies in the Persuasiveness of Social Robots. In: 2020 29th IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 863–868. I...

    2020

  114. [123]

    In: Ali, R., Lugrin, B., Charles, F

    Hashemian, M., Couto, M., Mascarenhas, S., Paiva, A., Santos, P.A., Prada, R.: Persuasive Social Robot Using Reward Power over Repeated Instances of Persuasion. In: Ali, R., Lugrin, B., Charles, F. (eds.) Persuasive Technology vol. 12684, pp. 63–70. Springer, Cham (2021). http...

    2021

  115. [124]

    International Journal of Research in Marketing34(1), 302–320 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.005

    Bruno, P., Melnyk, V., V¨ olckner, F.: Temperature and emotions: Effects of physical temperature on responses to emotional advertising. International Journal of Research in Marketing34(1), 302–320 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.005

    2017 doi

  116. [125]

    In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp

    Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., Norton, M.I.: Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2563–

    2009

  117. [126]

    Computers in Human Behavior105, 106220 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019

    Fraune, M.R., Oisted, B.C., Sembrowski, C.E., Gates, K.A., Krupp, M.M., ˇSabanovi´ c, S.: Effects of robot-human versus robot-robot behavior and entitativity on anthropomorphism and willingness to interact. Computers in Human Behavior105, 106220 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    2020 doi

  118. [127]

    In: Palinko, O., Bodenhagen, L., Cabibihan, J.-J., Fischer, K., ˇSabanovi´ c, S., Winkle, K., Behera, L., Ge, S.S., Chrysostomou, D., Jiang, W., He, H

    Zguda, P., Wr´ obel, A., Indurkhya, B.: Museum, classroom, or laboratory? Comparing child- robot interaction in different settings. In: Palinko, O., Bodenhagen, L., Cabibihan, J.-J., Fischer, K., ˇSabanovi´ c, S., Winkle, K., Behera, L., Ge, S.S., Chrysostomou, D., Jiang, W., ...

    2025

  119. [128]

    Scientific Reports15(1), 29233 (2025) https://doi

    Fazlollahtabar, H.: Human-robot interaction using retrieval-augmented generation and fine-tuning with transformer neural networks in industry 5.0. Scientific Reports15(1), 29233 (2025) https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-025-12742-9

    2025 doi

  120. [129]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 13(2), 169–185 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00629-w

    Schneider, S., Kummert, F.: Comparing robot and human guided personalization: Adaptive exercise robots are perceived as more competent and trustworthy. International Journal of Social Robotics 13(2), 169–185 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00629-w

    2021 doi

  121. [130]

    Computers in Human Behavior90, 351–356 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2018.08.026

    Lee, S.A., Liang, Y.J.: Robotic foot-in-the-door: Using sequential-request persuasive strategies in human-robot interaction. Computers in Human Behavior90, 351–356 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2018.08.026

    2019

  122. [132]

    Shiomi, M., Hagita, N.: Do synchronized multiple robots exert peer pressure? In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Human Agent Interaction, pp. 27–33. ACM, Biopolis Singapore (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2974804.2974808

    2016

  123. [133]

    In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp

    Ullrich, D., Butz, A., Diefenbach, S.: Who do you follow? Social robots’ impact on human judgment. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 265–266. ACM, Chicago IL USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3177014

    2018

  124. [134]

    In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp

    Winkle, K., Lemaignan, S., Caleb-Solly, P., Leonards, U., Turton, A., Bremner, P.: Effective persua- sion strategies for socially assistive robots. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 277–285. IEEE, Daegu, Korea (South) (2019)....

    2019

  125. [135]

    In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S

    Lu, S., Ham, J., Midden, C.: Persuasive technology based on bodily comfort experiences: The effect of color temperature of room lighting on user motivation to change room temperature. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) Persuasive Technology vol. 9072, pp. 83–94. Springer, C...

    2015 doi

  126. [136]

    Psychology & Marketing24(5), 475–495 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20169

    Yoon, C., Lee, M.P., Danziger, S.: The effects of optimal time of day on persuasion processes in older adults. Psychology & Marketing24(5), 475–495 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20169

    2007 doi

  127. [137]

    Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics3(4), 100131 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.birob

    Zhang, C., Chen, J., Li, J., Peng, Y., Mao, Z.: Large Language Models for human–robot interaction: A review. Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics3(4), 100131 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.birob. 2023.100131

    2023

  128. [138]

    In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp

    Rae, I., Takayama, L., Mutlu, B.: The influence of height in robot-mediated communication. In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 1–8. IEEE, Tokyo, Japan (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483495

    2013

  129. [139]

    Medicine 102(50), 36671 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000036671

    Elendu, C., Amaechi, D.C., Elendu, T.C., Jingwa, K.A., Okoye, O.K., John Okah, M., Ladele, J.A., Farah, A.H., Alimi, H.A.: Ethical implications of AI and robotics in healthcare: A review. Medicine 102(50), 36671 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000036671

    2023 doi

  130. [140]

    Pearson Custom Library

    Cialdini, R.B.: Influence: Science and Practice, 5th ed., pearson new international ed edn. Pearson Custom Library. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow (2014) 20

    2014

  131. [2568]

    Louis, MO, USA (2009)

    IEEE, St. Louis, MO, USA (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2009.5354116

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.