When Artificial Social Agents Try to Persuade People: The Role of Social Agency on the Occurrence of Psychological Reactance
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.
KeywordsPersuasive agents Psychological reactance Intentionality Social influence Energy conservation behavior
- 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.Brehm JW (1966) A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
- 4.Brehm SS, Brehm JW (1981) Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and control. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.