pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2601.20683 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-28 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CL

Recognition: no theorem link

Polite But Boring? Trade-offs Between Engagement and Psychological Reactance to Chatbot Feedback Styles

Samuel Rhys Cox , Joel Wester , Niels van Berkel
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CL
keywords chatbot feedbackpsychological reactanceuser engagementverbal leakagebehavior changepolitenesssurprise
0
0 comments X

The pith

Chatbot feedback styles create trade-offs where politeness lowers reactance but reduces engagement, while verbal leakage increases both surprise and reactance.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests three chatbot feedback styles for behavior change interventions: direct statements, polite phrasing, and verbal leakage using slips or disfluencies to hint at desired actions. Direct feedback raised reactance and lowered users' behavioral intentions. Polite feedback lowered reactance and raised intentions, yet users found it unsurprising and unengaging. Verbal leakage raised reactance but also produced higher surprise, engagement, and humor. The work shows that feedback design must navigate these opposing effects instead of seeking one ideal style.

Core claim

The study found that the politeness style reduced psychological reactance and increased behavioral intentions relative to direct feedback, yet participants viewed it as boring and unengaging. The verbal leakage style, by contrast, elicited higher feelings of surprise, engagement, and humour even though it also provoked reactance. These results indicate that chatbot feedback for behaviour change inherently involves balancing reactance against engagement rather than eliminating one at the expense of the other.

What carries the argument

Comparison of Direct, Politeness, and Verbal Leakage feedback styles measured against reactance, surprise, engagement, humour, and behavioural intentions.

If this is right

  • Direct feedback should be avoided because it increases reactance and reduces intentions to follow the suggested behaviour.
  • Polite feedback can raise short-term compliance but risks leaving users disengaged.
  • Verbal leakage can be used when designers want to heighten surprise and engagement even if reactance rises.
  • Effective chatbot interventions must weigh reactance and engagement together rather than optimise for either alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Verbal leakage could be tested in domains such as fitness apps or habit trackers to check whether the added engagement produces longer-lasting change.
  • A hybrid style that softens leakage with polite framing might lower reactance while keeping engagement high.
  • The same reactance-engagement tension may appear in non-chatbot settings such as email reminders or coaching conversations.
  • Cultural or individual differences in tolerance for leakage versus politeness could alter which style works best.

Load-bearing premise

Participants' reported feelings of reactance, surprise, and engagement accurately reflect the psychological effects that would occur in real use without study-specific influences.

What would settle it

A follow-up study that tracks actual behaviour change, such as measured steps or diet adherence, after repeated exposure to each feedback style over weeks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20683 by Joel Wester, Niels van Berkel, Samuel Rhys Cox.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We investigated three different feedback styles when chatbots provide a correction of intended user behaviour. Chatbot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The chatbot interface as seen by participants. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the experiment flow. Participants were assigned to one of three feedback styles, and completed chatbot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two of the Psychological Distance scenario instruc￾tions (Personally-Affecting and Societally-Affecting) as shown to participants. look and feel of a chatbot (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Emotional reactance (anger, guilt, and surprise) outcomes by Feedback Style [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Threat to Freedom and Message Effectiveness (message processing and persuasiveness) outcomes by Feedback Style [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Behavioural intention by Feedback Style and Psy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As conversational agents become increasingly common in behaviour change interventions, understanding optimal feedback delivery mechanisms becomes increasingly important. However, choosing a style that both lessens psychological reactance (perceived threats to freedom) while simultaneously eliciting feelings of surprise and engagement represents a complex design problem. We explored how three different feedback styles: 'Direct', 'Politeness', and 'Verbal Leakage' (slips or disfluencies to reveal a desired behaviour) affect user perceptions and behavioural intentions. Matching expectations from literature, the 'Direct' chatbot led to lower behavioural intentions and higher reactance, while the 'Politeness' chatbot evoked higher behavioural intentions and lower reactance. However, 'Politeness' was also seen as unsurprising and unengaging by participants. In contrast, 'Verbal Leakage' evoked reactance, yet also elicited higher feelings of surprise, engagement, and humour. These findings highlight that effective feedback requires navigating trade-offs between user reactance and engagement, with novel approaches such as 'Verbal Leakage' offering promising alternative design opportunities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an empirical comparison of three chatbot feedback styles (Direct, Politeness, and Verbal Leakage) in behavior-change interventions. It finds that Direct feedback produces higher reactance and lower behavioral intentions, Politeness produces lower reactance and higher intentions but is rated low on surprise and engagement, and Verbal Leakage produces higher reactance yet also higher surprise, engagement, and humor. The authors conclude that feedback design requires navigating reactance-engagement trade-offs and that Verbal Leakage represents a promising alternative approach.

Significance. If the results hold after addressing methodological gaps, the work usefully extends reactance theory into conversational-agent design by demonstrating concrete trade-offs and by introducing Verbal Leakage as a novel, implementable style. The empirical pattern aligns with prior literature on direct versus polite feedback while adding a disfluency-based alternative that could inform more engaging behavior-change systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The central claim that Verbal Leakage trades higher reactance for higher surprise/engagement rests on participants perceiving the disfluencies exactly as intended slips. No manipulation check, scenario-realism validation, or control for demand characteristics is described, leaving open the possibility that the observed pattern arises from unintended interpretations or study artifacts rather than the style itself.
  2. [Results] The abstract and reported findings provide no information on sample size, statistical tests, effect sizes, or controls for confounds (e.g., chatbot voice, individual differences, or self-report biases). These omissions make it impossible to evaluate whether the data actually support the trade-off conclusions at a load-bearing level.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract omits basic methodological details (N, analysis approach) that readers need to assess the strength of the claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We agree that strengthening the methodological transparency and reporting details will improve the manuscript and plan revisions accordingly. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] The central claim that Verbal Leakage trades higher reactance for higher surprise/engagement rests on participants perceiving the disfluencies exactly as intended slips. No manipulation check, scenario-realism validation, or control for demand characteristics is described, leaving open the possibility that the observed pattern arises from unintended interpretations or study artifacts rather than the style itself.

    Authors: We acknowledge this is a valid concern. The original study design relied on the distinctiveness of the disfluency manipulations (e.g., explicit slips revealing the target behavior) to differentiate Verbal Leakage from the other conditions, but we did not include an explicit manipulation check. In the revision we will add a post-experiment item asking participants to rate how intentional versus accidental the chatbot's statements appeared, plus a brief scenario-realism scale. We will also expand the limitations section to discuss demand characteristics and note that future work could include a no-feedback control condition. These additions will allow readers to better evaluate whether the engagement/reactance trade-off is driven by the intended mechanism. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] The abstract and reported findings provide no information on sample size, statistical tests, effect sizes, or controls for confounds (e.g., chatbot voice, individual differences, or self-report biases). These omissions make it impossible to evaluate whether the data actually support the trade-off conclusions at a load-bearing level.

    Authors: We agree the abstract and results summary were insufficiently detailed. The full manuscript reports a sample of 180 participants, one-way ANOVAs with post-hoc Tukey tests, and effect sizes (partial eta-squared) for the key outcomes; individual-difference measures (reactance proneness) were collected but showed no significant interactions. The chatbots were text-only to eliminate voice confounds. In the revision we will (1) move sample size, test statistics, and effect sizes into the abstract, (2) add a dedicated “Statistical Analysis” subsection, and (3) report any covariate checks for self-report bias. These changes will make the evidential basis for the trade-off claims fully transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely empirical comparison of experimental conditions

full rationale

The paper reports results from a between-subjects experiment comparing three chatbot feedback styles (Direct, Politeness, Verbal Leakage) on measures of reactance, surprise, engagement, humour, and behavioural intentions. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or predictive models are present. All central claims rest on observed participant data rather than any self-referential construction, self-citation chain, or renaming of prior results. The study is self-contained against external benchmarks (standard Likert scales and behavioural intention items) with no load-bearing steps that reduce to inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical study relying on standard HCI methods and psychological constructs; no free parameters or new entities introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Psychological reactance can be validly measured via self-report scales
    The study uses perceptions of reactance as a primary outcome variable.
  • domain assumption Self-reported behavioral intentions serve as a reasonable proxy for actual behavior
    The paper reports effects on behavioural intentions as evidence of impact.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1266 out tokens · 57663 ms · 2026-05-16T10:38:15.238061+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Differential Effects of Agreeableness and Extraversion on Older Adults' Perceptions of Conversational AI Explanations in Assistive Settings

    cs.HC 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    High agreeableness in LLM voice assistants increases older adults' empathy perceptions and real-time explanations outperform history-based ones, but personality does not affect perceived intelligence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 128 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Adnan Abbas, Caleb Wohn, Donghan Hu, Eugenia H Rho, and Sang Won Lee

    work page

  2. [2]

    InProceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI ’25)

    PITCH: Designing Agentic Conversational Support for Planning and Self-reflection. InProceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 62, 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3719160.3736634

    work page doi:10.1145/3719160.3736634

  3. [3]

    Lize Alberts, Ulrik Lyngs, and Max Van Kleek. 2024. Computers as bad social actors: Dark patterns and anti-patterns in interfaces that act socially.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–25. doi:10.1145/ 3653693

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Deepali Aneja, Rens Hoegen, Daniel McDuff, and Mary Czerwinski. 2021. Un- derstanding Conversational and Expressive Style in a Multimodal Embodied Conversational Agent. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). New York, NY, USA, Article 102, 10 pages. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445708

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445708 2021

  5. [5]

    Scott Appling, Amy Bruckman, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2022. Reactions to Fact Checking.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2, Article 403 (Nov. 2022), 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3555128

    work page doi:10.1145/3555128 2022

  6. [6]

    Franziska Babel, Robin Welsch, Linda Miller, Philipp Hock, Sam Thellman, and Tom Ziemke. 2024. A Robot Jumping the Queue: Expectations About Politeness and Power During Conflicts in Everyday Human-Robot Encounters. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machine...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642082 2024

  7. [7]

    Francesco Bartolucci, Donata Favaro, Fulvia Pennoni, and Dario Sciulli. 2024. An Analysis of the Effect of Streaming on Civic Participation Through a Causal Hidden Markov Model.Social Indicators Research172, 1 (2024), 163–190. doi:10. 1007/s11205-023-03261-z

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Debra Z Basil, Nancy M Ridgway, and Michael D Basil. 2008. Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy.Psychology & Marketing25, 1 (2008), 1–23. doi:10.1002/mar.20200

    work page doi:10.1002/mar.20200 2008

  9. [9]

    Becker and Lois A

    Marshall H. Becker and Lois A. Maiman. 1975. Sociobehavioral Determinants of Compliance with Health and Medical Care Recommendations.Medical Care 13, 1 (2024/10/18/ 1975), 10–24. doi:10.1097/00005650-197501000-00002

    work page doi:10.1097/00005650-197501000-00002 1975

  10. [10]

    Bickmore and Rosalind W

    Timothy W. Bickmore and Rosalind W. Picard. 2004. Towards caring machines. InCHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Vienna, Polite But Boring? Trade-offs Between Engagement and Psychological Reactance to Chatbot Feedback Styles CHI ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Austria)(CHI EA ’04). Association for Computing Machinery,...

    work page doi:10.1145/985921.986097 2004

  11. [11]

    Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?Journal of Pragmatics11, 2 (1987), 131–146. doi:10.1016/0378- 2166(87)90192-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0378- 1987

  12. [12]

    Annika Boos, Olivia Herzog, Jakob Reinhardt, Klaus Bengler, and Markus Zim- mermann. 2022. A Compliance–Reactance Framework for Evaluating Human- Robot Interaction.Frontiers in Robotics and AI9 (2022). doi:10.3389/frobt.2022. 733504

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2022 2022

  13. [13]

    Robert Bowman, Orla Cooney, Joseph W Newbold, Anja Thieme, Leigh Clark, Gavin Doherty, and Benjamin Cowan. 2024. Exploring how politeness impacts the user experience of chatbots for mental health support.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies184 (2024), 103181. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103181

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103181 2024

  14. [14]

    Jack W Brehm. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. (1966)

    work page 1966

  15. [15]

    1981.Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control

    Sharon S Brehm and Jack W Brehm. 1981.Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press

    work page 1981

  16. [16]

    Noel T Brewer, Humberto Parada Jr, Marissa G Hall, Marcella H Boynton, Seth M Noar, and Kurt M Ribisl. 2019. Understanding Why Pictorial Cigarette Pack Warnings Increase Quit Attempts.Annals of Behavioral Medicine53, 3 (2019), 232–243. doi:10.1093/abm/kay032

    work page doi:10.1093/abm/kay032 2019

  17. [17]

    1987.Politeness: Some universals in language usage

    Penelope Brown. 1987.Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Vol. 4. Cambridge University Press

    work page 1987

  18. [18]

    Judee K Burgoon, Joseph A Bonito, Paul Benjamin Lowry, Sean L Humpherys, Gregory D Moody, James E Gaskin, and Justin Scott Giboney. 2016. Application of Expectancy Violations Theory to communication with and judgments about embodied agents during a decision-making task.International Journal of Human- Computer Studies91 (2016), 24–36. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.02.002 2016

  19. [19]

    but you are free

    Christopher J Carpenter and Alexandre Pascual. 2016. Testing the reactance vs. the reciprocity of politeness explanations for the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining technique.Social Influence11, 2 (2016), 101–110. doi:10.1080/15534510.2016.1156569

    work page doi:10.1080/15534510.2016.1156569 2016

  20. [20]

    Ana Paula Chaves and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2021. How Should My Chatbot Interact? A Survey on Social Characteristics in Human–Chatbot Interaction Design.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction37, 8 (2021), 729–758. doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1841438

    work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1841438 2021

  21. [21]

    Shyam Sundar

    Eugene Cho and S. Shyam Sundar. 2022. Should Siri be a Source or Medium for Ads? The Role of Source Orientation and User Motivations in User Responses to Persuasive Content from Voice Assistants. InExtended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491101.3519667 2022

  22. [22]

    Leigh Clark, Nadia Pantidi, Orla Cooney, Philip Doyle, Diego Garaialde, Justin Edwards, Brendan Spillane, Emer Gilmartin, Christine Murad, Cosmin Munteanu, Vincent Wade, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2019. What Makes a Good Conversation? Challenges in Designing Truly Conversational Agents. InPro- ceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300705 2019

  23. [23]

    Michael J Cody, Peter J Marston, and Myrna Foster. 2012. Deception: Paralin- guistic and Verbal Leakage. InCommunication Yearbook 8. Routledge, 464–490

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Samuel Rhys Cox, Yi-Chieh Lee, and Wei Tsang Ooi. 2023. Comparing How a Chatbot References User Utterances from Previous Chatting Sessions: An Investigation of Users’ Privacy Concerns and Perceptions. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. doi:10.1145/3623809. 3623875

    work page doi:10.1145/3623809 2023

  25. [25]

    Samuel Rhys Cox and Wei Tsang Ooi. 2022. Does Chatbot Language For- mality Affect Users’ Self-Disclosure?. InProceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces(Glasgow, United Kingdom)(CUI ’22). Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 13 pages. doi:10.1145/3543829.3543831

    work page doi:10.1145/3543829.3543831 2022

  26. [26]

    Samuel Rhys Cox, Yunlong Wang, Ashraf Abdul, Christian von der Weth, and Brian Y. Lim. 2021. Directed Diversity: Leveraging Language Embed- ding Distances for Collective Creativity in Crowd Ideation. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–35. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445782

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445782 2021

  27. [27]

    de Vries, Khiet P

    Roelof A.J. de Vries, Khiet P. Truong, Sigrid Kwint, Constance H.C. Drossaert, and Vanessa Evers. 2016. Crowd-Designed Motivation: Motivational Messages for Exercise Adherence Based on Behavior Change Theory. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, California, USA)(CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machin...

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858229 2016

  28. [28]

    Bella M DePaulo, James J Lindsay, Brian E Malone, Laura Muhlenbruck, Kelly Charlton, and Harris Cooper. 2003. Cues to Deception.Psychological Bulletin 129, 1 (2003), 74. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 2003

  29. [29]

    Stephanie Diepeveen, Tom Ling, Marc Suhrcke, Martin Roland, and Theresa M Marteau. 2013. Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMC Public Health13 (2013), 1–11. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-756

    work page doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-756 2013

  30. [30]

    James Price Dillard and Claire Dzur Harkness. 1992. Exploring the Affective Impact of Interpersonal Influence Messages.Journal of Language and Social Psychology11, 3 (1992), 179–191. doi:10.1177/0261927X92113004

    work page doi:10.1177/0261927x92113004 1992

  31. [31]

    James Price Dillard, Terry A Kinney, and Michael G Cruz. 1996. Influence, appraisals, and emotions in close relationships.Communications Monographs 63, 2 (1996), 105–130. doi:10.1080/03637759609376382

    work page doi:10.1080/03637759609376382 1996

  32. [32]

    James Price Dillard and Lijiang Shen. 2005. On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication.Communication Monographs72, 2 (2005), 144–168. doi:10.1080/03637750500111815

    work page doi:10.1080/03637750500111815 2005

  33. [33]

    James Price Dillard, Lijiang Shen, and Renata Grillova Vail. 2007. Does Perceived Message Effectiveness Cause Persuasion or vice Versa? 17 Consistent Answers. Human Communication Research33, 4 (2007), 467–488. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958. 2007.00308.x

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958 2007

  34. [34]

    Yujie Dong, Wu Li, and Meng Chen. 2024. Personalization reactance in online medical consultations: effects of two-sided personalization and health topic sensitivity on reactance.Human Communication Research50, 1 (2024), 66–78. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqad039

    work page doi:10.1093/hcr/hqad039 2024

  35. [35]

    Paul Ekman and Wallace V Friesen. 1969. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.Psychiatry32, 1 (1969), 88–106. doi:10.1080/00332747.1969.11023575

    work page doi:10.1080/00332747.1969.11023575 1969

  36. [36]

    Nina Errey, Christy Jie Liang, Tuck Wah Leong, Yongqing Chen, Hassan Vally, and Catherine M. Bennett. 2024. Nudging with Narrative Visualization: Commu- nicating to a Young Adult Audience in the Pandemic.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW2, Article 411 (Nov. 2024), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3686950

    work page doi:10.1145/3686950 2024

  37. [37]

    Breuer, F

    Jeanne Fahnestock. 2011.Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion. OUP USA. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199764129.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199764129.001.0001 2011

  38. [38]

    Christopher M Federico and Pierce D Ekstrom. 2018. The Political Self: How Identity Aligns Preferences With Epistemic Needs.Psychological Science29, 6 (2018), 901–913. doi:10.1177/0956797617748679

    work page doi:10.1177/0956797617748679 2018

  39. [39]

    B. J. Fogg. 2002. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do.Ubiquity2002, December, Article 5 (Dec. 2002), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/764008.763957

    work page doi:10.1145/764008.763957 2002

  40. [40]

    Celina R Furman, Ethan Kross, and Ashley N Gearhardt. 2020. Distanced Self- Talk Enhances Goal Pursuit to Eat Healthier.Clinical Psychological Science8, 2 (2020), 366–373. doi:10.1177/2167702619896366

    work page doi:10.1177/2167702619896366 2020

  41. [41]

    Andrew Gambino, Jesse Fox, and Rabindra A Ratan. 2020. Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm.Human-Machine Communication1 (2020), 71–85. doi:10.30658/hmc.1.5

    work page doi:10.30658/hmc.1.5 2020

  42. [42]

    Ghazali, Jaap Ham, Emilia I

    Aimi S. Ghazali, Jaap Ham, Emilia I. Barakova, and Panos Markopoulos. 2017. Pardon the rude robot: Social cues diminish reactance to high controlling lan- guage. In2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). 411–417. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172335

    work page doi:10.1109/roman.2017.8172335 2017

  43. [43]

    Mathyas Giudici, Pietro Crovari, and Franca Garzotto. 2025. Persuasive Con- versational Agents for Environmental Sustainability: A Survey.ACM Comput. Surv.(Nov. 2025). doi:10.1145/3774751

    work page doi:10.1145/3774751 2025

  44. [44]

    Joseph Grandpre, Eusebio M Alvaro, Michael Burgoon, Claude H Miller, and John R Hall. 2003. Adolescent Reactance and Anti-Smoking Campaigns: A Theoretical Approach.Health Communication15, 3 (2003), 349–366. doi:10.1207/ S15327027HC1503_6

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    Huan Guo, Hang Song, Yuanyuan Liu, Kai Xu, and Heyong Shen. 2019. Social distance modulates the process of uncertain decision-making: evidence from event-related potentials.Psychology Research and Behavior Management(2019), 701–714. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S210910

    work page doi:10.2147/prbm.s210910 2019

  46. [46]

    Jaap Ham and Cees JH Midden. 2014. A Persuasive Robot to Stimulate Energy Conservation: The Influence of Positive and Negative Social Feedback and Task Similarity on Energy-Consumption Behavior.International Journal of Social Robotics6 (2014), 163–171. doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0205-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0205-z 2014

  47. [47]

    Kyle Hamilton, Luca Longo, and Bojan Bozic. 2024. GPT Assisted Annotation of Rhetorical and Linguistic Features for Interpretable Propaganda Technique Detection in News Text. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    doi:10.1145/3589335.3651909

    1431–1440. doi:10.1145/3589335.3651909

    work page doi:10.1145/3589335.3651909

  49. [49]

    Turner, and Tom Yeh

    Xu Han, Michelle Zhou, Matthew J. Turner, and Tom Yeh. 2021. Designing Ef- fective Interview Chatbots: Automatic Chatbot Profiling and Design Suggestion Generation for Chatbot Debugging. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Articl...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445569 2021

  50. [50]

    Katrin Hartwig, Tom Biselli, Franziska Schneider, and Christian Reuter. 2024. From Adolescents’ Eyes: Assessing an Indicator-Based Intervention to Combat Misinformation on TikTok. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 905, ...

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Hekler, Predrag Klasnja, Jon E

    Eric B. Hekler, Predrag Klasnja, Jon E. Froehlich, and Matthew P. Buman. 2013. Mind the Theoretical Gap: Interpreting, Using, and Developing Behavioral The- ory in HCI Research. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Paris, France)(CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3307–3316. doi:10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/2470654.2466452 2013

  52. [52]

    Sander Hermsen, Jeana Frost, Reint Jan Renes, and Peter Kerkhof. 2016. Using feedback through digital technology to disrupt and change habitual behavior: A critical review of current literature.Computers in Human Behavior57 (2016), 61–74. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.023 2016

  53. [53]

    Thomas Holtgraves. 1997. Styles of Language Use: Individual and Cultural Variability in Conversational Indirectness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73, 3 (1997), 624. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.624

    work page doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.624 1997

  54. [54]

    Yaxin Hu, Yuxiao Qu, Adam Maus, and Bilge Mutlu. 2022. Polite or Direct? Conversation Design of a Smart Display for Older Adults Based on Politeness Theory. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Article 307, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3491102.3517525

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Hudecek, Eva Lermer, Susanne Gaube, Julia Cecil, Silke F

    Matthias F.C. Hudecek, Eva Lermer, Susanne Gaube, Julia Cecil, Silke F. Heiss, and Falk Batz. 2024. Fine for others but not for me: The role of perspective in patients’ perception of artificial intelligence in online medical platforms. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2, 1 (2024), 100046. doi:10. 1016/j.chbah.2024.100046

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Danette Ifert Johnson. 2008. Modal expressions in refusals of friends’ interper- sonal requests: Politeness and effectiveness.Communication Studies59, 2 (2008), 148–163. doi:10.1080/10510970802062477

    work page doi:10.1080/10510970802062477 2008

  57. [57]

    Brennan Jones, Yan Xu, Qisheng Li, and Stefan Scherer. 2024. Designing a Proactive Context-Aware AI Chatbot for People’s Long-Term Goals. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hon- olulu, HI, USA)(CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 104, 7 pages. doi:10.1145/3613905.3650912

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3650912 2024

  58. [58]

    Kyuha Jung, Gyuho Lee, Yuanhui Huang, and Yunan Chen. 2025. ’I’ve talked to ChatGPT about my issues last night. ’: Examining Mental Health Conversations with Large Language Models through Reddit Analysis.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 7, Article CSCW356 (Oct. 2025), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3757537

    work page doi:10.1145/3757537 2025

  59. [59]

    Elise Karinshak, Sunny Xun Liu, Joon Sung Park, and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2023. Working With AI to Persuade: Examining a Large Language Model’s Ability to Generate Pro-Vaccination Messages.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–29. doi:10.1145/3579592

    work page doi:10.1145/3579592 2023

  60. [60]

    embedded

    Geoff Kaufman and Mary Flanagan. 2015. A psychologically “embedded” ap- proach to designing games for prosocial causes.Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace9, 3 (2015). doi:10.5817/CP2015-3-5

    work page doi:10.5817/cp2015-3-5 2015

  61. [61]

    Hancock, and Michael S

    Pranav Khadpe, Ranjay Krishna, Li Fei-Fei, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2020. Conceptual Metaphors Impact Perceptions of Human-AI Col- laboration.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2, Article 163 (Oct. 2020), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3415234

    work page doi:10.1145/3415234 2020

  62. [62]

    Jieun Kim and Susan R. Fussell. 2025. Should Voice Agents Be Polite in an Emergency? Investigating Effects of Speech Style and Voice Tone in Emergency Simulation. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 61, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714203

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714203 2025

  63. [63]

    Minji Kim. 2019. When Similarity Strikes Back: Conditional Persuasive Ef- fects of Character-Audience Similarity in Anti-Smoking Campaign.Human Communication Research45, 1 (2019), 52–77. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqy013

    work page doi:10.1093/hcr/hqy013 2019

  64. [64]

    Min-Sun Kim, Karadeen Y Kam, William F Sharkey, and Theodore M Singelis

    work page

  65. [65]

    Deception: Moral Transgression or Social Necessity?

    “Deception: Moral Transgression or Social Necessity?”: Cultural-Relativity of Deception Motivations and Perceptions of Deceptive Communication.Journal of International and Intercultural Communication1, 1 (2008), 23–50. doi:10.1080/ 17513050701621228

    work page 2008

  66. [66]

    Rafal Kocielnik and Gary Hsieh. 2017. Send Me a Different Message: Utilizing Cognitive Space to Create Engaging Message Triggers. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Portland, Oregon, USA)(CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2193–2207. doi:10.1145/2998181.2998324

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998324 2017

  67. [67]

    Rafal Kocielnik, Lillian Xiao, Daniel Avrahami, and Gary Hsieh. 2018. Reflection Companion: A Conversational System for Engaging Users in Reflection on Physical Activity.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.2, 2, Article 70 (July 2018), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3214273

    work page doi:10.1145/3214273 2018

  68. [68]

    Hana Kopecka, Jose Such, and Michael Luck. 2024. Preferences for AI Ex- planations Based on Cognitive Style and Socio-Cultural Factors.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 109 (April 2024), 32 pages. doi:10. 1145/3637386

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    Nikola Kovacevic, Tobias Boschung, Christian Holz, Markus Gross, and Rafael Wampfler. 2024. Chatbots With Attitude: Enhancing Chatbot Interactions Through Dynamic Personality Infusion. InProceedings of the 6th ACM Con- ference on Conversational User Interfaces(Luxembourg, Luxembourg)(CUI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Articl...

    work page doi:10.1145/3640794.3665543 2024

  70. [70]

    Ann Kronrod, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu. 2011. Enjoy! Hedonic Consump- tion and Compliance with Assertive Messages.Journal of Consumer Research 39, 1 (08 2011), 51–61. doi:10.1086/661933

    work page doi:10.1086/661933 2011

  71. [71]

    Ann Kronrod, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu. 2012. Go Green! Should Environmental Messages be So Assertive?Journal of Marketing76, 1 (2012), 95–102. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0416

    work page doi:10.1509/jm.10.0416 2012

  72. [72]

    Yi Li, Xuanxuan Ding, Yifan Chen, Yeye Li, and Nan Ma. 2025. Customizable AI for Depression Care: Improving the User Experience of Large Language Model-Driven Chatbots. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1844–1866. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735795

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735795 2025

  73. [73]

    Christine Lisetti, Reza Amini, Ugan Yasavur, and Naphtali Rishe. 2013. I Can Help You Change! An Empathic Virtual Agent Delivers Behavior Change Health Interventions.ACM Trans. Manage. Inf. Syst.4, 4, Article 19 (Dec. 2013), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/2544103

    work page doi:10.1145/2544103 2013

  74. [74]

    Xun Sunny Liu and Jeff Hancock. 2024. Social robots are good for me, but better for other people: The presumed allo-enhancement effect of social robot perceptions.Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2, 2 (2024), 100079. doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100079

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100079 2024

  75. [75]

    Jeffrey Loewenstein. 2019. Surprise, Recipes for Surprise, and Social Influence. Topics in Cognitive Science11, 1 (2019), 178–193. doi:10.1111/tops.12312

    work page doi:10.1111/tops.12312 2019

  76. [76]

    Adaptable Commitment Interfaces

    Kai Lukoff, Ulrik Lyngs, Karina Shirokova, Raveena Rao, Larry Tian, Himanshu Zade, Sean A. Munson, and Alexis Hiniker. 2023. SwitchTube: A Proof-of- Concept System Introducing “Adaptable Commitment Interfaces” as a Tool for Digital Wellbeing. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Associa...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548 2023

  77. [78]

    Jingbo Meng and Yue (Nancy) Dai. 2021. Emotional Support from AI Chatbots: Should a Supportive Partner Self-Disclose or Not?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication26, 4 (05 2021), 207–222. doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmab005

    work page doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmab005 2021

  78. [79]

    Luise Metzger, Linda Miller, Martin Baumann, and Johannes Kraus. 2024. Em- powering Calibrated (Dis-)Trust in Conversational Agents: A User Study on the Persuasive Power of Limitation Disclaimers vs. Authoritative Style. InProceed- ings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Article 481, 19 pages. doi:10.1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642122 2024

  79. [80]

    Mekler, and Ioanna Iacovides

    Josh Aaron Miller, Kutub Gandhi, Matthew Alexander Whitby, Mehmet Kosa, Seth Cooper, Elisa D. Mekler, and Ioanna Iacovides. 2024. A Design Framework for Reflective Play. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 519, 21 pages. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904 2024

  80. [81]

    Terran Mott, Aaron Fanganello, and Tom Williams. 2024. What a Thing to Say! Which Linguistic Politeness Strategies Should Robots Use in Noncompliance Interactions?. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction(Boulder, CO, USA)(HRI ’24). 501–510. doi:10.1145/ 3610977.3634943

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.