International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 155–165 | Cite as

When Artificial Social Agents Try to Persuade People: The Role of Social Agency on the Occurrence of Psychological Reactance

  • Maaike Roubroeks
  • Jaap HamEmail author
  • Cees MiddenEmail author
Open Access


In the near future, robotic agents might employ persuasion to influence people’s behavior or attitudes, just as human agents do in many situations. People can comply with these requests, but, people can also experience psychological reactance, which may lead to the complete opposite of the proposed behavior. In this study we are interested in the social nature of psychological reactance. Social agency theory proposes that more social cues lead to a more social interaction. We argue that this also holds for psychological reactance. Therefore, we expect a positive relationship between the level of social agency of the source of a persuasive message and the amount of psychological reactance the message arouses. In an online experiment, participants read an advice on how to conserve energy when using a washing machine. The advice was either provided as text-only, as text accompanied by a still picture of a robotic agent, or as text accompanied by a short film clip of the same robotic agent. Confirming our expectations, results indicated that participants experienced more psychological reactance when the advice was accompanied by the still picture or when the advice was accompanied by the short film clip as compared to when the advice was provided as text-only. This indicates that stronger social agency of the messenger can lead to more psychological reactance. Furthermore, our results confirmed earlier research about the effects of controlling language on psychological reactance. Implications are discussed.


Persuasive agents Psychological reactance Intentionality Social influence Energy conservation behavior 


  1. 1.
    Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173–1182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blascovich J (2002) A theoretical model of social influence for increasing the utility of collaborative virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on collaborative virtual environments, Bonn, Germany, 2000. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 25–30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brehm JW (1966) A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brehm SS, Brehm JW (1981) Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and control. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brehm JW, Stires LK, Sensenig J, Shaban J (1966) The attractiveness of an eliminated choice alternative. J Exp Soc Psychol 2:301–313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buller DB, Borland R, Burgoon M (1998) Impact of behavioral intention on effectiveness of message features: evidence from the family sun safety project. Hum Commun Res 24(3):433–453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgoon M, Alvaro E, Grandpre J, Voulodakis M (2002) Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In: Dillard J, Pfau M (eds) The persuasion handbook: theory and practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dillard JP, Shen L (2005) On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Commun Monogr 72:144–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grandpre J, Alvaro EM, Burgoon M, Miller CH, Hall JR (2003) Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: a theoretical approach. Health Commun 15(3):349–366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guadagno RE, Blascovich J, Bailenson JN, McCall C (2007) Virtual humans and persuasion: the effect of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychol 10:1–22 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hone K (2006) Empathic agents to reduce user frustration: the effects of varying agent characteristics. Interact Comput 18:227–245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langer EJ (1992) Matters of mind: mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Conscious Cogn 1:289–305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Louwerse MM, Graesser AC, Lu S, Mitchell HH (2005) Social cues in animated conversational agents. Appl Cogn Psychol 19:693–704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu S, Helfenstein S, Wahlstedt A (2008) Social psychology of persuasion applied to human-agent interaction. Hum Technol 4(2):123–143 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lusk MM, Atkinson RK (2007) Animated pedagogical agents: does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static animated worked examples? Appl Cogn Psychol 21:747–764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mayer RE, Sobko K, Mautone PD (2003) Social cues in multimedia learning: role of speaker’s voice. J Educ Psychol 95:419–425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller CH, Lane LT, Deatrick LM, Young AM, Potts KA (2007) Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: the effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Hum Commun Res 33:219–240 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quick BL, Considine JR (2008) Examining the use of forceful language when designing exercise persuasive messages for adults: a test of conceptualizing reactance arousal as a two-step process. Health Commun 23:483–491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quick BL, Stephenson MT (2007a) The reactance restoration scale (RRS): a measure of direct and indirect restoration. Commun Res Rep 24(2):131–138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quick BL, Stephenson MT (2007b) Further evidence that psychological reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Commun Res 34(3):255–276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quick BL, Stephenson MT (2008) examining the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking on perceived threat, state reactance, and reactance restoration. Hum Commun Res 34:448–476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rains SA, Turner MM (2007) Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: a test and extension of the intertwined model. Hum Commun Res 33:241–269 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reeves B, Nass C (2002) The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinhart AM, Marshall HM, Feeley TH, Tutzauer F (2007) The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: the mediating role of psychological reactance. Commun Monogr 74(2):229–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human-Technology InteractionEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations