Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Chatbots have been used to achieve persuasive goals in various communication contexts. This research investigates how chatbot anthropomorphism intersects with emotional appeals to influence persuasive outcomes in science communication by conducting two experiments in the contexts of skin cancer prevention and biodiversity conservation. The findings showed a matching effect between emotional appeals and anthropomorphic cues: For a chatbot with more anthropomorphic cues, fear appeals were more persuasive than hope appeals; in contrast, for a less anthropomorphic chatbot, hope appeals were more effective. A key psychological mechanism underlying the relationships was personal risk perceptions but only for fear appeals.

Keywords

chatbot anthropomorphism emotional appeals persuasion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahn

Kim

Sung

(2021). AI-powered recommendations: The roles of perceived similarity and psychological distance on persuasion. International Journal of Advertising, 40(8), 1366–1384. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.1982529

American Academy of Dermatology Association. (n.d.). Infographic: Say yes to sun protection. https://www.aad.org/public/diseases/skin-cancer/prevent/sun-protection

Araujo

(2018). Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.051

Blut

Wang

Wünderlich

N. V.

Brock

(2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y

Bord

R. J.

O’Connor

R. E.

Fisher

(2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301

Brehm

S. S.

Brehm

J. W.

(1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.

Brooker

(1981). A comparison of the persuasive effects of mild humor and mild fear appeals. Journal of Advertising, 10(4), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1981.10672782

Cao

Zhao

(2019). Anthropomorphism of intelligent personal assistants (IPAs): Antecedents and consequences. In PACIS 2019 Proceedings (Vol. 187). https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2019/187

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Sun safety. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/sun-safety.htm

10.

Chadwick

A. E.

(2015, June 11–14). Bridging the divide between positive and negative: The effectiveness of hope and fear appeals in climate change communication [Paper presention]. The Conference on Communication and the Environment (COCE), Boulder, CO, United States.

11.

Cho

Boster

F. J.

(2008). Effects of gain versus loss frame antidrug ads on adolescents. Journal of Communication, 58(3), 428–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00393.x

12.

Dehnert

Mongeau

P. A.

(2022). Persuasion in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Theories and complications of AI-based persuasion. Human Communication Research, 48(3), 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac006

13.

Diamond

Zhou

(2021). Whose policy is it anyway? Public support for clean energy policy depends on the message and the messenger. Environmental Politics, 31, 991–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1969844

14.

Dillard

J. P.

Nabi

R. L.

(2006). The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl. 1), S123–S139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00286.x

15.

Dillard

J. P.

Peck

(2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27(4), 461–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027004003

16.

Dillard

J. P.

Shen

. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815

17.

Dillard

J. P.

Shen

. (2018). Threat appeals as multi-emotion messages: An argument structure model of fear and disgust. Human Communication Research, 44(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx002

18.

Epley

Waytz

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

19.

Ettinger

Walton

Painter

DiBlasi

(2021). Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos. Climatic Change, 164(1–2), 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02975-8

20.

Feldman

Hart

P. S.

(2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015617941

21.

Fraune

M. R.

(2020). Our robots, our team: Robot anthropomorphism moderates group effects in human–robot teams. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1275. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01275

22.

Fugate

J. M. B.

Franco

C. L.

(2019). What color is your anger? Assessing color-emotion pairings in English speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 206. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00206

23.

Hartmann

Apaolaza

D’souza

Barrutia

J. M.

Echebarria

(2014). Environmental threat appeals in green advertising: The role of fear arousal and coping efficacy. International Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 741–765. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-33-4-741-765

24.

Ischen

Araujo

van Noort

Voorveld

Smit

(2020). “I am here to assist you today”: The role of entity, interactivity and experiential perceptions in chatbot persuasion. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(4), 615–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1834297

25.

Kidd

L. R.

Bekessy

S. A.

Garrard

G. E.

(2019). Neither hope nor fear: Empirical evidence should drive biodiversity conservation strategies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34(4), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.018

26.

Kim

Sundar

S. S.

(2012). Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless? Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006

27.

Krishen

A. S.

Bui

(2015). Fear advertisements: Influencing consumers to make better health decisions. International Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996278

28.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. The American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819

29.

Lee

Y. K.

Chang

C. T.

Chen

P. C.

(2017). What sells better in green communications: Fear or hope? It depends on whether the issue is global or local. Journal of Advertising Research, 57(4), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2017-048

30.

Suh

(2021). Machinelike or humanlike? A literature review of anthropomorphism in AI-enabled technology. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4053–4062). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.493

31.

Zhu

Zhang

Zhou

Liu

(2022). The effects of anthropomorphism, message framing, and voice type on unhealthy sleep behavior in young users: The mediating role of risk perception. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15), 9570. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159570

32.

Ling

E. C.

Tussyadiah

Tuomi

Stienmetz

Ioannou

(2021). Factors influencing users’ adoption and use of conversational agents: A systematic review. Psychology & Marketing, 38(7), 1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21491

33.

Lombard

(2021). Social responses to media technologies in the 21st century: The media are social actors paradigm. Human-machine Communication, 2, 29–55. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.2.2

34.

Major

L. H.

Coleman

(2012). Source credibility and evidence format: Examining the effectiveness of HIV/AIDS messages for young African Americans. Journal of Health Communication, 17(5), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.635771

35.

Mohammad

S. M.

Turney

P. D.

(2013). Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence, 29(3), 436–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00460.x

36.

Morana

Gnewuch

Jung

Granig

(2020, June 15–17). The effect of anthropomorphism on investment decision-making with robo-advisor chatbots [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Marrakech, Morocco. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/63

37.

Mori

MacDorman

K. F.

Kageki

(2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

38.

Nabi

R. L.

(2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881

39.

Nabi

R. L.

Myrick

J. G.

(2019). Uplifting fear appeals: Considering the role of hope in fear-based persuasive messages. Health Communication, 34(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1422847

40.

Nabi

R. L.

Prestin

(2016). Unrealistic hope and unnecessary fear: Exploring how sensationalistic news stories influence health behavior motivation. Health Communication, 31(9), 1115–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1045237

41.

Nass

Moon

(2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153

42.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23

43.

O’Neill

Nicholson-Cole

(2009). “Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201

44.

Priest

(2019). Theme issue: Communication and persuasion on energy, environment, and climate. Science Communication, 41(4), 391–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019864178

45.

Rhee

C. E.

Choi

(2020). Effects of personalization and social role in voice shopping: An experimental study on product recommendation by a conversational voice agent. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, Article 106359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106359

46.

Rimal

R. N.

Real

(2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00844.x

47.

Sah

Y. J.

Peng

(2015). Effects of visual and linguistic anthropomorphic cues on social perception, self-awareness, and information disclosure in a health website. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.055

48.

Shen

(2011). The effectiveness of empathy-versus fear-arousing antismoking PSAs. Health Communication, 26(5), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.552480

49.

Shi

Wang

Y. J.

Zhang

Sahay

(2020). Effects of persuasive dialogues: Testing bot identities and inquiry strategies. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376843

50.

Skurka

Niederdeppe

Nabi

. (2019). Kimmel on climate: Disentangling the emotional ingredients of a satirical monologue. Science Communication, 41(4), 394–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019853837

51.

Skurka

Niederdeppe

Romero-Canyas

Acup

(2018). Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: Benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions. Journal of Communication, 68(1), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx008

52.

Spears

N. E.

Blankson

Guzmán

(2012). Hope and fear in an advertisement context: Understanding how hope undoes fear. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 33(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2012.675560

53.

Tannenbaum

M. B.

Hepler

Zimmerman

R. S.

Saul

Jacobs

Wilson

Albarracín

(2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729

54.

Ulick

Umlauf

(2021, October 23). The bumblebee’s plight: Why It is disappearing in the U.S. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bumblebees-plight-why-they-are-disappearing-in-the-u-s-11634992056

55.

United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/biodiversity/

56.

von der Pütten

A. M.

Krämer

N. C.

Gratch

Kang

S. H

. (2010). “It doesn’t matter what you are!” Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1641–1650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.012

57.

Voorveld

Araujo

(2020). How social cues in virtual assistants influence concerns and persuasion: The role of voice and a human name. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 23(10), 689–696. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0205

58.

Wilms

Oberfeld

(2018). Color and emotion: Effects of hue, saturation, and brightness. Psychological Research, 82(5), 896–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0880-8

59.

World Wildlife Fund. (n.d.). Wildlife conservation. https://www.worldwildlife.org/initiatives/wildlife-conservation

60.

Zalake

de Siqueira

A. G.

Vaddiparti

Lok

(2021). The effects of virtual human’s verbal persuasion strategies on user intention and behavior. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 156, Article 102708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102708

61.

Zarouali

Makhortykh

Bastian

Araujo

(2021). Overcoming polarization with chatbot news? Investigating the impact of news content containing opposing views on agreement and credibility. European Journal of Communication, 36(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120940908

62.

Zhang

Y. J.

Lange

Fukuoka

(2020). Artificial intelligence chatbot behavior change model for designing artificial intelligence chatbots to promote physical activity and a healthy diet. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), Article e22845. https://doi.org/10.2196/22845

Striking an Emotional Chord: Effects of Emotional Appeals and Chatbot Anthropomorphism on Persuasive Science Communication

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References