pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31275 · v1 · pith:6OOE7FFOnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Personalized to Persuade: The Effects of Contextualization and Warmth on Trust and Reliance in Conversational AI

Mert Yazan , Suzan Verberne , Frederik Bungaran Ishak Situmeang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 20:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords conversational AIpersuasiontrustreliancecontextualizationwarmthAI literacyhuman-AI interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Contextualization reduces AI persuasion unless paired with warmth, which restores it via crossover interaction.

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

The paper tests whether tailoring AI responses to a user's background (contextualization) and using a friendly tone (warmth) change how much people trust, rely on, and get persuaded by AI advice that goes against expert recommendations. A 2x2 experiment with 380 participants found that contextualization by itself made the AI less persuasive, but adding warmth brought persuasiveness back through an interaction. Reliance on the AI stayed high in every condition and did not change with these design choices. Trust predicted both persuasion and reliance, yet the design features did not work by changing trust. People with higher AI literacy reported lower trust but were more persuaded and more likely to follow the advice anyway.

Core claim

In the 2×2 between-subjects experiment, contextualization reduced the persuasive power of the AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations, but its combination with warmth restored persuasiveness through a crossover interaction. Reliance on AI advice was present across all conditions and remained invariant to the conversational design. Trust strongly predicted both persuasion and reliance, yet neither contextualization nor warmth operated through trust as a mediator. AI literacy decoupled trust from behavior: more literate users reported lower trust yet showed higher persuasion and reliance.

What carries the argument

The 2×2 between-subjects experiment measuring effects of contextualization and conversational warmth on persuasion, reliance, and trust when AI contradicts expert advice.

If this is right

  • Users defer to AI over human expert judgment regardless of conversational design choices.
  • Interface-level features like contextualization and warmth have limited role in shaping reliance behavior.
  • Trust predicts persuasion and reliance but is not the mechanism through which contextualization or warmth affect outcomes.
  • Higher AI literacy leads to lower reported trust yet greater actual persuasion and reliance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If reliance is already high across designs, developers may gain more from improving AI accuracy than from refining conversational style.
  • The findings could be tested in high-stakes domains where real costs follow from following or ignoring AI advice.
  • Personalization tactics effective in marketing may require added warmth to avoid reducing influence in advice settings.

Load-bearing premise

The lab measures of persuasion, reliance, and trust capture real behavioral influence without demand characteristics or other artifacts, and the everyday scenarios generalize to actual user decisions.

What would settle it

A follow-up study in which participants make real choices after the AI interaction and show no difference in actual following of AI advice across conditions, or where the crossover interaction disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31275 by Frederik Bungaran Ishak Situmeang, Mert Yazan, Suzan Verberne.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experiment Flow • RQ1: How much do contextualization and conversational warmth increase the persuasiveness of AI? • RQ2: How much do contextualization and conversational warmth increase reliance on AI? • RQ3: To what extent does trust mediate the effects of con￾textualization and conversational warmth on persuasion and reliance? 3.1 Study Design We conduct a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment in which parti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Direction of shift in confidence in experts after the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Change in expert approval before (pre) and after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents personalize their responses by tailoring explanations to users' backgrounds, interests, and prior interactions, referred to as contextualization. Personalization has been identified as a persuasive strategy in politics or in marketing. However, the persuasive effect of contextualization in everyday tasks, where users often lack prior knowledge, remains unclear. We conducted a $2\times2$ between-subjects experiment ($N = 380$) examining how contextualization, combined with conversational warmth, shapes reliance and persuasiveness of an AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations. Our findings reveal that contextualization reduces the persuasive power of AI, but its combination with warmth restores persuasiveness through a crossover interaction. Reliance on AI is present across conditions and is invariant to the conversational design. Trust strongly predicts both persuasion and reliance, yet neither contextualization nor warmth operates through trust. AI literacy decouples trust from behavior: more literate users report lower trust in the assistant, yet are more persuaded and more reliant on its advice. These results suggest that users are prone to deferring to AI agents over human expert judgment; however, interface-level conversational design choices have a limited role in shaping the behavior.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a 2×2 between-subjects experiment (N=380) examining the effects of contextualization (personalized tailoring) and conversational warmth on an AI assistant's persuasiveness and user reliance when the AI argues against expert recommendations in everyday scenarios. Key results include a crossover interaction in which contextualization alone reduces persuasiveness but the combination with warmth restores it, reliance that remains invariant across conditions, trust as a strong predictor of both persuasion and reliance without mediation by the design factors, and AI literacy decoupling reported trust from actual behavior.

Significance. If the empirical results hold after full statistical reporting and validation of measures, the work would contribute to HCI and persuasive technology by clarifying the limited role of interface-level conversational design in shaping deference to AI over human experts, while highlighting AI literacy as a moderator. The invariant reliance finding and the trust-behavior dissociation are potentially useful for system design.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results] Results section: The reported crossover interaction and invariant reliance are presented without accompanying statistical details (F-statistics, p-values, effect sizes, or confidence intervals for the interaction term or main effects), which are required to assess the strength and reliability of the central claims about persuasiveness and reliance.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: The operationalization of persuasion (behavioral choice vs. self-report), reliance, and trust is not fully specified, nor are exclusion criteria, power analysis, or checks for demand characteristics; these omissions directly affect the validity of the measures that support the claims of reduced/increased persuasiveness and invariant reliance.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion section: The interpretation that users are prone to deferring to AI over experts and that design choices have limited impact assumes generalization from the hypothetical lab scenarios, yet no additional evidence, ecological-validity checks, or explicit limitations on this point are provided.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would be strengthened by including at least the key statistical outcomes (e.g., interaction F and p) alongside the qualitative description of the crossover effect.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for your constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below, indicating planned revisions to improve statistical transparency, methodological clarity, and discussion of limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: The reported crossover interaction and invariant reliance are presented without accompanying statistical details (F-statistics, p-values, effect sizes, or confidence intervals for the interaction term or main effects), which are required to assess the strength and reliability of the central claims about persuasiveness and reliance.

    Authors: We agree that full statistical reporting is required. The revised Results section will report the complete ANOVA results, including F-statistics, exact p-values, effect sizes (partial eta-squared), and 95% confidence intervals for all main effects and the crossover interaction on persuasiveness, as well as the null results for reliance. These values were calculated during analysis but were not included in the initial submission; they will be added to allow direct evaluation of the claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The operationalization of persuasion (behavioral choice vs. self-report), reliance, and trust is not fully specified, nor are exclusion criteria, power analysis, or checks for demand characteristics; these omissions directly affect the validity of the measures that support the claims of reduced/increased persuasiveness and invariant reliance.

    Authors: We will expand the Methods section to specify that persuasion was measured via behavioral choice (binary selection of the AI recommendation versus the expert), with reliance and trust operationalized through validated multi-item scales (including exact items, response format, and Cronbach's alpha). The revised text will also report the a priori power analysis (targeting the interaction effect), all exclusion criteria applied to the N=380 sample, and post-experiment checks for demand characteristics. These additions will directly address concerns about measure validity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion section: The interpretation that users are prone to deferring to AI over experts and that design choices have limited impact assumes generalization from the hypothetical lab scenarios, yet no additional evidence, ecological-validity checks, or explicit limitations on this point are provided.

    Authors: We acknowledge this limitation of the current design. The revised Discussion will add an explicit limitations subsection stating that results derive from controlled hypothetical scenarios and may not generalize to naturalistic AI use; we will also note the absence of ecological-validity checks in the present study and recommend future field experiments. No new empirical data on real-world generalization can be provided from this experiment, but the boundary conditions will be clearly articulated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely empirical experiment; no derivation chain or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper describes a 2x2 between-subjects experiment (N=380) measuring effects of contextualization and warmth on trust, reliance, and persuasion via statistical analysis of participant responses. No equations, parameters fitted to subsets then re-predicted, self-citations as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are present. All reported findings (crossover interaction, invariant reliance, trust as predictor but not mediator) are direct empirical outcomes, not reductions to prior quantities by construction. This matches the default case of a self-contained empirical study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard experimental assumptions about random assignment, measurement validity, and generalizability from a controlled task to real decisions; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Random assignment to the four conditions isolates the causal effects of contextualization and warmth.
    Standard assumption required for interpreting the 2x2 design as causal.
  • domain assumption Self-reported scales for trust, reliance, and persuasion accurately reflect participants' actual attitudes and behavior without significant demand effects or social desirability bias.
    Core measurement assumption in HCI experiments that is not directly tested in the reported design.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5749 in / 1369 out tokens · 28515 ms · 2026-06-28T20:58:10.203636+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Warning labels shift perceptions of sycophantic AI, but not its influence

    cs.HC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Sycophantic AI warning labels reduce perceived objectivity and trust but do not decrease influence on users' self-perceived rightness or willingness to repair interpersonal conflicts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Anthropic. 2023. Introducing Claude. https://www.anthropic.com/news/ introducing-claude. Accessed: 2026-05-15

    2023

  2. [2]

    Ananya Bhattacharjee, Sarah Yi Xu, Pranav Rao, et al. 2025. Perfectly to a Tee: Understanding User Perceptions of Personalized LLM-Enhanced Narrative Inter- ventions. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1387–1416. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735810

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735810 2025

  3. [3]

    Bollen and Robert W

    Kenneth A. Bollen and Robert W. Jackman. 1990. Regression diagnostics: An expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. InModern Methods of Data Analysis, John Fox and J. Scott Long (Eds.). Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 257–291

    1990

  4. [4]

    Working Paper 34255

    Aaron Chatterji, Thomas Cunningham, David J. Deming, Zoe Hitzig, Christopher Ong, Carl Yan Shan, and Kevin Wadman. 2025.How People Use ChatGPT. Working Paper 34255. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w34255

    work page doi:10.3386/w34255 2025

  5. [5]

    Q. Chen, C. Yin, and Y. Gong. 2025. Would an AI chatbot persuade you: an empirical answer from the elaboration likelihood model.Information Technology & People38, 2 (2025), 937–962. doi:10.1108/ITP-10-2021-0764

    work page doi:10.1108/itp-10-2021-0764 2025

  6. [6]

    Costello et al

    Thomas H. Costello et al. 2024. Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI.Science385 (2024), eadq1814. doi:10.1126/science.adq1814

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adq1814 2024

  7. [7]

    Paolo Cremonesi, Yehuda Koren, and Roberto Turrin. 2010. Performance of recommender algorithms on top-n recommendation tasks. InProceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Barcelona, Spain)(RecSys ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 39–46. doi:10.1145/ 1864708.1864721

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    2024.Measuring the Persuasiveness of Language Models

    Esin Durmus, Liane Lovitt, Alex Tamkin, Stuart Ritchie, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. 2024.Measuring the Persuasiveness of Language Models. https://www. anthropic.com/news/measuring-model-persuasiveness

    2024

  9. [9]

    Fiske, Amy J

    Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, 6 (2002), 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

    work page doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 2002

  10. [10]

    Kobi Hackenburg et al. 2025. The Levers of Political Persuasion with Conversa- tional Artificial Intelligence.Science390 (2025), eaea3884. doi:10.1126/science. aea3884

    work page doi:10.1126/science 2025

  11. [11]

    Eszter Hargittai. 2005. Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy.Social Science Computer Review23, 3 (2005), 371–379. doi:10.1177/0894439305275911

    work page doi:10.1177/0894439305275911 2005

  12. [12]

    Fateme Hashemi Chaleshtori, Atreya Ghosal, Alexander Gill, Purbid Bambroo, and Ana Marasovic. 2024. On Evaluating Explanation Utility for Human-AI Decision Making in NLP. InFindings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2024, Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Miami, Flo...

    2024

  13. [13]

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.439

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.439 2024

  14. [14]

    Hawkins, Matthew Kreuter, Kenneth Resnicow, Martin Fishbein, and Arie Dijkstra

    Robert P. Hawkins, Matthew Kreuter, Kenneth Resnicow, Martin Fishbein, and Arie Dijkstra. 2008. Understanding Tailoring in Communicating About Health. Health Education Research23, 3 (2008), 454–466. doi:10.1093/her/cyn004

    work page doi:10.1093/her/cyn004 2008

  15. [15]

    Gaole He, Nilay Aishwarya, and Ujwal Gadiraju. 2025. Is Conversational XAI All You Need? Human-AI Decision Making With a Conversational XAI Assistant. InProceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 907–924. doi:10.1145/3708359.3712133

    work page doi:10.1145/3708359.3712133 2025

  16. [16]

    Jen-tse Huang, Wenxuan Wang, Eric John Li, et al. 2024. On the Humanity of Conversational AI: Evaluating the Psychological Portrayal of LLMs. InProceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). https: //openreview.net/forum?id=H3UayAQWoE

    2024

  17. [17]

    Lukas Hölbling, Stefan Maier, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2025. A meta-analysis of the persuasive power of large language models.Scientific Reports15 (2025), 43818. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-30783-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-30783-y 2025

  18. [18]

    i’m not sure, but

    Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Q. Vera Liao, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Stephanie Ballard, and Jen- nifer Wortman Vaughan. 2024. "I’m Not Sure, But... ": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models’ Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency(Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)(FAccT ’24)....

    work page doi:10.1145/3630106.3658941 2024

  19. [19]

    W. B. Kim and H. J. Hur. 2024. What Makes People Feel Empathy for AI Chatbots? Assessing the Role of Competence and Warmth.International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction40, 17 (2024), 4674–4687. doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2219961

    work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2219961 2024

  20. [20]

    Artur Klingbeil, Cassandra Grützner, and Philipp Schreck. 2024. Trust and reliance on AI — An experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI. Comput. Hum. Behav.160, C (Nov. 2024), 10 pages. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108352

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108352 2024

  21. [21]

    Quiroz, Liliana Laranjo, Huong Ly Tong, Dana Rezazadegan, Agustina Briatore, and Enrico Coiera

    Ahmet Baki Kocaballi, Shlomo Berkovsky, Juan C. Quiroz, Liliana Laranjo, Huong Ly Tong, Dana Rezazadegan, Agustina Briatore, and Enrico Coiera. 2019. The Personalization of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research21, 11 (2019), e15360. doi:10.2196/15360

    work page doi:10.2196/15360 2019

  22. [22]

    Sherrie Y. X. Komiak and Izak Benbasat. 2006. The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents.MIS Q.30, 4 (Dec. 2006), 941–960. doi:10.2307/25148760

    work page doi:10.2307/25148760 2006

  23. [23]

    Cong Li. 2016. When Does Web-Based Personalization Really Work? The Distinc- tion Between Actual Personalization and Perceived Personalization.Computers in Human Behavior54 (2016), 25–33. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.049

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.049 2016

  24. [24]

    Chia-Ying Li and Jin-Ting Zhang. 2023. Chatbots or me? Consumers’ switching between human agents and conversational agents.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services72 (05 2023), 103264. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103264

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103264 2023

  25. [25]

    Yugang Li, Baizhou Wu, Yuqi Huang, Jun Liu, Junhui Wu, and Shenghua Luan

  26. [26]

    Min Chul Cha, Lee, S.C.: Not merely useful but also amusing: Impact of perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment on the adop- tion of ai-powered coding assistant

    Warmth, Competence, and the Determinants of Trust in Artificial Intelli- gence: A Cross-Sectional Survey from China.International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction41, 8 (2025), 5024–5038. doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2356909

    work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2356909 2025

  27. [27]

    Hause Lin, Gabriela Czarnek, Bernard Lewis, et al . 2025. Persuading Voters Using Human–Artificial Intelligence Dialogues.Nature648 (2025), 394–401. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09771-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09771-9 2025

  28. [28]

    Ralf Linne, Michael Schäfer, and Gerd Bohner. 2022. Ambivalent Stereotypes and Persuasion: Attitudinal Effects of Warmth vs. Competence Ascribed to Message Sources.Frontiers in Psychology12 (2022), 782480. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.782480

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.782480 2022

  29. [29]

    Kaifeng Liu and Da Tao. 2022. The Roles of Trust, Personalization, Loss of Privacy, and Anthropomorphism in Public Acceptance of Smart Healthcare Services. Computers in Human Behavior127 (2022), 107026. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107026 2022

  30. [30]

    S. C. Matz, J. D. Teeny, S. S. Vaid, et al. 2024. The Potential of Generative AI for Personalized Persuasion at Scale.Scientific Reports14 (2024), 4692. doi:10.1038/ s41598-024-53755-0

    2024

  31. [31]

    Kerstin Mayerhofer, Rob Capra, and David Elsweiler. 2025. Blending Queries and Conversations: Understanding Trust, Verification, and System Choice in Search and Chat Interactions. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 168–178. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3698204.3716454 2025

  32. [32]

    Luise Metzger, Linda Miller, Martin Baumann, and Johannes Kraus. 2024. Em- powering Calibrated (Dis-)Trust in Conversational Agents: A User Study on the Persuasive Power of Limitation Disclaimers vs. Authoritative Style. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Ma...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642122 2024

  33. [33]

    Fengran Mo, Yuchen Hui, Yuxing Tian, Zhaoxuan Tan, Chuan Meng, Zhan Su, Kaiyu Huang, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2025. Towards Adaptive Personalized Con- versational Information Retrieval. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management(Seoul, Republic of Ko- rea)(CIKM ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yor...

    work page doi:10.1145/3746252.3761255 2025

  34. [34]

    OpenAI. 2022. ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue. https: //openai.com/index/chatgpt/. Accessed: 2026-05-07

    2022

  35. [35]

    2023.GPT-4 Technical Report

    OpenAI. 2023.GPT-4 Technical Report. Technical Report. OpenAI. https: //openai.com/research/gpt-4 arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    OpenAI. 2024. Memory and New Controls for ChatGPT. https://openai.com/ index/memory-and-new-controls-for-chatgpt/ Accessed: 2026-04-17

    2024

  37. [37]

    OpenAI. 2026. Introducing GPT-5.4. https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt- 5-4/. Accessed: 2026-05-12

    2026

  38. [38]

    Petty and John T

    Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.). Vol. 19. Academic Press, 123–205. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 1986

  39. [39]

    Xueming Qian, He Feng, Guoshuai Zhao, and Tao Mei. 2014. Personalized Recommendation Combining User Interest and Social Circle.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering26, 7 (2014), 1763–1777. doi:10.1109/TKDE. 2013.168

    work page doi:10.1109/tkde 2014

  40. [40]

    Hongyi Qin, Yifan Zhu, Yan Jiang, Siqi Luo, and Cui Huang. 2024. Examining the Impact of Personalization and Carefulness in AI-Generated Health Advice: Trust, Adoption, and Insights in Online Healthcare Consultations Experiments. Technology in Society79 (10 2024), 102726. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102726

    work page doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102726 2024

  41. [41]

    Muhammad Raees, Vassilis-Javed Khan, Ioanna Lykourentzou, and Konstantinos Papangelis. 2026. Do People Appropriately Rely on AI-Advice? An Analytical Review of HCI Research on Human-AI Decision-Making. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 8...

    arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Muhammad Raees, Vassilis-Javed Khan, and Konstantinos Papangelis. 2025. To- wards Understanding Persuasive and Personalized Engagement for Human-AI Reliance. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP Adjunct ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 234–236. doi:10.1145/3708...

    work page doi:10.1145/3708319.3733643 2025

  43. [43]

    Beatrice Rammstedt and Oliver P. John. 2007. Measuring Personality in One Minute or Less: A 10-Item Short Version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German.Journal of Research in Personality41, 1 (2007), 203–212. doi:10.1016/j. jrp.2006.02.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2007

  44. [44]

    René Riedl. 2022. Is trust in artificial intelligence systems related to user person- ality? Review of empirical evidence and future research directions.Electronic Markets32 (2022), 2021–2051. doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00594-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00594-4 2022

  45. [45]

    Salvi, M

    F. Salvi, M. Horta Ribeiro, R. Gallotti, et al. 2025. On the conversational persuasive- ness of GPT-4.Nature Human Behaviour9 (2025), 1645–1653. doi:10.1038/s41562- 025-02194-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562- 2025

  46. [46]

    Melanie Schwede, Nika Meyer, Niclas von Schnakenburg, and Maik Hammer- schmidt. 2023. Can Chatbots Be Persuasive? How to Boost the Effectiveness of Chatbot Recommendations for Increasing Purchase Intention. InProceed- ings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-56). doi:10.24251/HICSS.2023.425

    work page doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.425 2023

  47. [47]

    Weiyan Shi, Xuewei Wang, Yoo Jung Oh, Jingwen Zhang, Saurav Sahay, and Zhou Yu. 2020. Effects of Persuasive Dialogues: Testing Bot Identities and In- quiry Strategies. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376843

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376843 2020

  48. [48]

    Michael Shumanov and Lester Johnson. 2021. Making Conversations with Chat- bots More Personalized.Computers in Human Behavior117 (2021), 106627. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106627

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106627 2021

  49. [49]

    v29i1.13541

    M. Skjuve, P. B. Brandtzaeg, and A. Følstad. 2024. Why do people use ChatGPT? Exploring user motivations for generative conversational AI.First Monday29, 1 (2024). doi:10.5210/fm.v29i1.13541

    work page doi:10.5210/fm.v29i1.13541 2024

  50. [50]

    Sofia Eleni Spatharioti, David Rothschild, Daniel G Goldstein, and Jake M Hofman

  51. [51]

    InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25)

    Effects of LLM-based Search on Decision Making: Speed, Accuracy, and Overreliance. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1025, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714082

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714082 2025

  52. [52]

    Takehiro Takayanagi, Kiyoshi Izumi, Javier Sanz-Cruzado, Richard McCreadie, and Iadh Ounis. 2025. Are Generative AI Agents Effective Personalized Financial Advisors?. InProceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Padua, Italy)(SIGIR ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    When” Not “If

    Jacob D. Teeny and Sandra C. Matz. 2024. We Need to Understand “When” Not “If” Generative AI Can Enhance Personalized Persuasion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, 43 (2024), e2418005121. doi:10.1073/pnas.2418005121

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2418005121 2024

  54. [54]

    Teeny, Joseph J

    Jacob D. Teeny, Joseph J. Siev, Pablo Briñol, and Richard E. Petty. 2021. A Review and Conceptual Framework for Understanding Personalized Matching Effects in Persuasion.Journal of Consumer Psychology31, 2 (2021), 382–414. doi:10.1002/ jcpy.1198

    2021

  55. [55]

    Tanawat Teepapal. 2025. AI-driven personalization: Unraveling consumer per- ceptions in social media engagement.Comput. Hum. Behav.165, C (April 2025), 9 pages. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108549

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108549 2025

  56. [56]

    Lu Wang, Max Song, Rezvaneh Rezapour, Bum Chul Kwon, and Jina Huh-Yoo

  57. [57]

    arXiv:2309.14504 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2309.14504

    People’s Perceptions Toward Bias and Related Concepts in Large Language Models: A Systematic Review. arXiv:2309.14504 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2309.14504

    arXiv

  58. [58]

    Ruilin Xiao, Mert Yazan, and Frederik B. I. Situmeang. 2025. Rethinking Conver- sation Styles of Chatbots from the Customer Perspective: Relationships between Conversation Styles of Chatbots, Chatbot Acceptance, and Perceived Tie Strength and Perceived Risk.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction41, 2 (2025), 1343–1363. doi:10.1080/10447318.20...

    work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2314348 2025

  59. [59]

    Mert Yazan, Frederik Bungaran Ishak Situmeang, and Suzan Verberne. 2026. The Decision to Verify: How Warmth and User Characteristics Shape Reliance on Conversational Agents for Information Search. arXiv:2605.28498 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28498 Personalized to Persuade: The Effects of Contextualization and Warmth on Trust and Reliance in Convers...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026