The Persuasive Power of Human-Machine Dialogue

  • Divya Ramachandran
  • John Canny
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5033)


The persuasive power of live interaction is hard to match, yet technologies are increasingly taking on roles to promote behavioral change. We believe that speech-based interfaces offer a compelling mode of interaction for engaging users and are motivated to understand how to best present persuasive information using speech interaction. We present a study comparing the persuasive power of two speech-based information systems, one which uses a recorded message-based lecture presentation and another which uses an interactive dialogic presentation. We measure the persuasive power across both conditions using a survival task. We find that the dialogic system is significantly more persuasive than the lecture system. We also find that the dialogic system presents significantly (almost four times) less information than the lecture system. We analyze our results using three standard rank correlation methods. We point to limitations of these measures and propose a new metric which appears to be more sensitive for this task.


Speech Recognition System Persuasive Technology Persuasive Message Dialogic System Rank Correlation Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bradner, E., Mark, G.: Why distance matters: Effects of cooperation, persuasion and deception. In: Proceedings of Computer-Supported Collaborative Work 2002, pp. 226–235. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brug, J., Steenhuis, I., Van Assema, P., De Vries, H.: The impact of a computer-tailored nutrition intervention. Preventive Medicine 25, 236–242 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis, S.: Internet-based tailored health communications: history and theoretical foundations. Interface: The Journal of Education, Community and Values 7(3) (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diaconis, P., Graham, R.L.: Spearman’s footrule as a measure of disarray. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 39(2), 262–268 (1977)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkstra, A.: Technology adds new principles to persuasive psychology: evidence from health education. In: IJsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 16–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elms, A.C.: Influence of fantasy ability on attitude change through role-playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4, 36–43 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Good, P.: Permutation, Parametric, and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall, J., Watson, W.H.: The Effects of a Normative Intervention on Group Decision-Making Performance. Human Relations 23, 299 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kraft, P., Schjelderup-Lund, H., Brendryen, H.: Digital Therapy: The coming together of psychology and technology can create a new generation of programs for more sustainable behavioral change. In: de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 18–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nass, C., Brave, S.: Wired for Speech. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E.R.: Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of CHI 1994. ACM Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petty, R.E., Wegener, D.T.: The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current status and Controversies. In: Chaiken, S., Trope, Y. (eds.) Dual process theories in social psychology, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Werkhoven, P., Schraagen, J.M., Punte, P.A.J.: Seeing is believing: communication performance under isotropic teleconferencing conditions. Displays 22 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Divya Ramachandran
    • 1
  • John Canny
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations