Can an Android Persuade You?

  • Kohei Ogawa
  • Christoph Bartneck
  • Daisuke Sakamoto
  • Takayuki Kanda
  • Tetsuo Ono
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro


The first robotic copies of real humans have become available. They enable their users to be physically present in multiple locations simultaneously. This study investigates the influence that the embodiment of an agent has on its persuasiveness and its perceived personality. Is a robotic copy as persuasive as its human counterpart? Does it have the same personality? We performed an experiment in which the embodiment of the agent was the independent variable and the persuasiveness and perceived personality were the dependent measurements. The persuasive agent advertised a Bluetooth headset. The results show that an android is perceived as being as persuasive as a real human or a video recording of a real human. The personality of the participant had a considerable influence on the measurements. Participants who were more open to new experiences rated the persuasive agent lower on agreeableness and extroversion. They were also more willing to spend money on the advertised product.


HRI Android Persuasion 



This work was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S), KAKENHI (20220002).


  1. 1.
    Ogawa, K., C. Bartneck, D. Sakamoto, T. Kanda, T. Ono, and H. Ishiguro. 2009. Can an android persuade you? In 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2009), 516–521.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zanbaka, C., P. Goolkasian, and L. Hodges. 2006. Can a virtual cat persuade you? The role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness. In SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carli, L.L. 1990. Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Priester, J.R., and R.E. Petty. 1995. Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petty, R.E., and J.T. Cacioppo. 1981. Attitudes and persuasion—classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown Co. Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haugtvedt, C.P., and R.E. Petty. 1992. Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fogg, B.J. 2003. Persuasivetechnology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Amsterdam, Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dautenhahn, K. 2003. Roles and functions of robots in human society: Implications from research in autism therapy. Robotica 21: 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shinozawa, K., F. Naya, J. Yamato, and K. Kogure. 2005. Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62: 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Powers, A., S. Kiesler, S. Fussell, and C. Torrey. 2007. Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, 145–152, Arlington, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kidd, C.D., and C. Breazeal. 2004. Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In Proceedings 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2004), vol. 4, 3559–3564.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nass, C., and K.M. Lee. 2000. Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experimental test of similarity-attraction. In SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 329–336, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mullennix, J.W., S.E. Stern, S.J. Wilson, and C.l. Dyson. 2003. Social perception of male and female computer synthesized speech. Computers in Human Behavior 19: 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldberg, L.R. 1992. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment 4: 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saucier, G. 1994. Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment 63: 506–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mowen, J.C. 2000. The 3 m model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jung, C.G. 1923. Psychological types: Or the psychology of individuation, ed. C.G. Jung, trans. H. Godwin Baynes. London: Routledge and K. Paul.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Costa, P.T., and R.R. McCrae. 1992. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment 4: 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hayashi, F. 1978. The fundamental dimensions of interpersonal cognitive structure. Nagoya University, School of Education, Department of Education Psychology Bulletin 25: 233–247.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fogg, B.J., and T. Hsiang. 1999. The elements of computer credibility. In SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 80–87, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bartneck, C. 2001. How convincing is Mr. Data’s smile: Affective expressions of machines. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 11: 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCrae, R.R., and P.T. Costa. 1987. Validation of a five-factor model or personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stern, S.E., J.W. Mullennix, C.-L. Dyson, and S.J. Wilson. 1999. The persuasiveness of synthetic speech versus human speech. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41: 588–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slater, M., and M. Usoh. 1994. Body centered interaction in immersive virtual environments. In Artificial life and virtual reality, ed. N. Magnenat-Thalmann, and D. Thalmann, 125–148. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pertaub, D.-P., M. Slater, and C. Barker. 2002. An experiment on public speaking anxiety in response to three different types of virtual audience. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 11: 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suzuki, S.V., and S. Yamada. 2004. Persuasion through overheard communication by life-like agents. In IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology (IAT 2004), 225–231, Beijing.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bartneck, C., T. Suzuki, T. Kanda, and T. Nomura. 2007. The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI & Society—The Journal of Human-Centred Systems 21: 217–230.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bartneck, C. 2008. Who like androids more: Japanese or US Americans? In 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN 2008, 553–557, München.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kohei Ogawa
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christoph Bartneck
    • 2
  • Daisuke Sakamoto
    • 1
    • 4
  • Takayuki Kanda
    • 1
  • Tetsuo Ono
    • 3
  • Hiroshi Ishiguro
    • 1
  1. 1.ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication LaboratoriesKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Media ArchitectureFuture University-hakodate School of Systems Information ScienceHakodateJapan
  4. 4.Graduate School of Information, Science and TechnologyThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations