Investigating Strategies for Robot Persuasion in Social Human–Robot Interaction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persuasion is a fundamental aspect of how people interact with each other. As robots become integrated into our daily lives and take on increasingly social roles, their ability to persuade will be critical to their success during human-robot interaction (HRI). In this article, we present a novel HRI study that investigates how a robot's persuasive behavior influences people's decision making. The study consisted of two small social robots trying to influence a person's answer during a jelly bean guessing game. One robot used either an emotional or logical persuasive strategy during the game, while the other robot displayed a neutral control behavior. The results showed that the Emotion strategy had significantly higher persuasive influence compared to both the Logic and Control conditions. With respect to participant demographics, no significant differences in influence were observed between age or gender groups; however, significant differences were observed when considering participant occupation/field of study (FOS). Namely, participants in business, engineering, and physical sciences fields were more influenced by the robots and aligned their answers closer to the robot's suggestion than did those in the life sciences and humanities professions. The discussions provide insight into the potential use of robot persuasion in social HRI task scenarios; in particular, considering the influence that a robot displaying emotional behaviors has when persuading people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it