Although more individuals are relying on information provided by nonhuman agents, such as artificial intelligence and robots, little research has examined how persuasion attempts made by nonhuman agents might differ from persuasion attempts made by human agents. Drawing on construal-level theory, we posited that individuals would perceive artificial agents at a low level of construal because of the agents’ lack of autonomous goals and intentions, which directs individuals’ focus toward how these agents implement actions to serve humans rather than why they do so. Across multiple studies (total N = 1,668), we showed that these construal-based differences affect compliance with persuasive messages made by artificial agents. These messages are more appropriate and effective when the message represents low-level as opposed to high-level construal features. These effects were moderated by the extent to which an artificial agent could independently learn from its environment, given that learning defies people’s lay theories about artificial agents.
AwadE.DsouzaS.KimR.SchulzJ.HenrichJ.ShariffA.. . . RahwanI. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563, 59–64.
2.
BagozziR. P.DholakiaU. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63, 19–32.
3.
BausellR. B.LiY.-F. (2002). Power analysis for experimental research: A practical guide for the biological, medical and social sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2009). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 49–96.
5.
CesarioJ.GrantH.HigginsE. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404.
6.
DehaeneS.LauH.KouiderS. (2017). What is consciousness, and could machines have it?Science, 358, 486–492.
7.
DietvorstB. J.SimmonsJ. P.MasseyC. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 114–126.
8.
DweckC. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
9.
EstevaA.KuprelB.NovoaR. A.KoJ.SwetterS. M.BlauH. M.ThrunS. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542, 115–118.
10.
FloridiL.SandersJ. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14, 349–379.
11.
FranklinS.WolpertS.McKayS. R.ChristianW. (1997). Artificial minds. Computers in Physics, 11, 258–259.
12.
FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN.Levin-SagiM. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351–367.
13.
HanD.DuhachekA.AgrawalN. (2016). Coping and construal level matching drives health message effectiveness via response efficacy or self-efficacy enhancement. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 429–447.
14.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.
15.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470.
16.
HuangM.-H.RustR. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21, 155–172.
17.
KellerP. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 109–114.
KozakM. N.MarshA. A.WegnerD. M. (2006). What do I think you’re doing? Action identification and mind attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 543–555.
20.
LeeA. Y.KellerA. P.SternthalB. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 735–747.
21.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.
22.
MacDormanK. F.VasudevanS. K.HoC. C. (2009). Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI & Society, 23, 485–510.
23.
MendeM.ScottM. L.van DoornJ.GrewalD.ShanksI. (2019). Service robots rising: How humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56, 535–556.
24.
MontagueA.MatsonF. (1983). The dehumanization of man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
25.
MullerD.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.
26.
NiiyaY.CrockerJ.BartmessE. N. (2004). From vulnerability to resilience: Learning orientations buffer contingent self-esteem from failure. Psychological Science, 15, 801–805.
27.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
28.
RidleyD. S.SchutzP. A.GlanzR. S.WeinsteinC. E. (1992). Self-regulated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 293–306.
29.
RussellS. J.NorvigP. (2010). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568.
31.
SpillerS. A.FitzsimonsG. J.LynchJ. G.Jr.McClellandG. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 277–288.
32.
TeenyJ.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2017). The elaboration likelihood model: Understanding consumer attitude change. In Jansson-BoydC. V.ZawiszaM. J. (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 390–410). New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
34.
TurkleS. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
35.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671.
36.
WardA. F.OlsenA. S.WegnerD. M. (2013). The harm-made mind: Observing victimization augments attribution of minds to vegetative patients, robots, and the dead. Psychological Science, 24, 1437–1445.
37.
WaytzA.HeafnerJ.EpleyN. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117.
38.
WaytzA.NortonM. I. (2014). Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking—not feeling—jobs. Emotion, 14, 434–444.
39.
YeomansM.ShahA.MullainathanS.KleinbergJ. (2019). Making sense of recommendations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32, 403–414.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
