Personalized to Persuade: The Effects of Contextualization and Warmth on Trust and Reliance in Conversational AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.31275v1
• Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 13:07:03 GMT
• Title: Personalized to Persuade: The Effects of Contextualization and Warmth on Trust and Reliance in Conversational AI
• Abstract summary: Personalization has been identified as a persuasive strategy in politics or in marketing.<n>We examine how contextualization, combined with conversational warmth, shapes reliance and persuasiveness of an AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations.
• Score: 8.544772506500188
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents personalize their responses by tailoring explanations to users' backgrounds, interests, and prior interactions, referred to as contextualization. Personalization has been identified as a persuasive strategy in politics or in marketing. However, the persuasive effect of contextualization in everyday tasks, where users often lack prior knowledge, remains unclear. We conducted a $2\times2$ between-subjects experiment ($N = 380$) examining how contextualization, combined with conversational warmth, shapes reliance and persuasiveness of an AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations. Our findings reveal that contextualization reduces the persuasive power of AI, but its combination with warmth restores persuasiveness through a crossover interaction. Reliance on AI is present across conditions and is invariant to the conversational design. Trust strongly predicts both persuasion and reliance, yet neither contextualization nor warmth operates through trust. AI literacy decouples trust from behavior: more literate users report lower trust in the assistant, yet are more persuaded and more reliant on its advice. These results suggest that users are prone to deferring to AI agents over human expert judgment; however, interface-level conversational design choices have a limited role in shaping the behavior.

Related papers

• Trust by Design: Trust Calibration Through Non-Advisory Socratic Dialogue in Conversational Agents [0.0]
  We present CASELy, a conversational agent designed to limit its own authority through non-advisory Socratic dialogue.<n>The agent asks reflective questions grounded exclusively in user input and refuses to provide advice, recommendations, or interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T22:19:18Z)
• The Decision to Verify: How Warmth and User Characteristics Shape Reliance on Conversational Agents for Information Search [8.544772506500188]
  Information search increasingly follows a hybrid interaction paradigm that combines conversational AI with web search.<n>We investigate the underlying factors (e.g., digital literacy and conversation warmth) that drive users to verify AI answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T14:00:45Z)
• What Drives Students' Use of AI Chatbots? Technology Acceptance in Conversational AI [0.17188280334580194]
  We examine how perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use relate to students' behavioral intention to use conversational AI.<n>We find perceived usefulness remains the strongest predictor of students' intention to use conversational AI.<n>Trust and subjective norms significantly influence perceptions of usefulness, while perceived enjoyment exerts both a direct and indirect effect on usage intentions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T05:00:41Z)
• When AI Persuades: Adversarial Explanation Attacks on Human Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Making [7.170587130743388]
  Large Language Models generate fluent natural-language explanations that shape how users perceive and trust AI outputs.<n>We introduce adversarial explanation attacks (AEAs), where an attacker manipulates the framing of LLM-generated explanations to modulate human trust in incorrect outputs.<n>This is the first systematic security study that treats explanations as an adversarial cognitive channel and quantifies their impact on human trust in AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T20:42:44Z)
• Generative Confidants: How do People Experience Trust in Emotional Support from Generative AI? [4.442753300582291]
  People are increasingly turning to generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot) for emotional support and companionship.<n>While trust is likely to play a central role in enabling these informal and unsupervised interactions, we still lack an understanding of how people develop and experience it in this context.<n>We conducted a qualitative study consisting of diary entries about interactions, transcripts of chats with AI, and in-depth interviews.<n>Our results suggest important novel drivers of trust in this context: familiarity emerging from personalisation, nuanced mental models of generative AI, and awareness of people's control over conversations
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:19:41Z)
• AI-exhibited Personality Traits Can Shape Human Self-concept through Conversations [26.039188521284974]
  We show how AI personality traits can shape users' self-concepts through human-AI conversation.<n>We provide important design implications for developing more responsible and ethical AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T05:16:57Z)
• Must Read: A Systematic Survey of Computational Persuasion [60.83151988635103]
  AI-driven persuasion can be leveraged for beneficial applications, but also poses threats through manipulation and unethical influence.<n>Our survey outlines future research directions to enhance the safety, fairness, and effectiveness of AI-powered persuasion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T17:26:31Z)
• Interactive Dialogue Agents via Reinforcement Learning on Hindsight Regenerations [58.65755268815283]
  Many real dialogues are interactive, meaning an agent's utterances will influence their conversational partner, elicit information, or change their opinion. We use this fact to rewrite and augment existing suboptimal data, and train via offline reinforcement learning (RL) an agent that outperforms both prompting and learning from unaltered human demonstrations. Our results in a user study with real humans show that our approach greatly outperforms existing state-of-the-art dialogue agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T21:37:51Z)
• X-TURING: Towards an Enhanced and Efficient Turing Test for Long-Term Dialogue Agents [56.64615470513102]
  The Turing test examines whether AIs exhibit human-like behaviour in natural language conversations.<n>Traditional setting limits each participant to one message at a time and requires constant human participation.<n>This paper proposes textbftextscX-Turing, which enhances the original test with a textitburst dialogue pattern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T09:57:28Z)
• Understanding How People Rate Their Conversations [73.17730062864314]
  We conduct a study to better understand how people rate their interactions with conversational agents. We focus on agreeableness and extraversion as variables that may explain variation in ratings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-01T00:45:32Z)
• Interacting with Non-Cooperative User: A New Paradigm for Proactive Dialogue Policy [83.61404191470126]
  We propose a new solution named I-Pro that can learn Proactive policy in the Interactive setting. Specifically, we learn the trade-off via a learned goal weight, which consists of four factors. The experimental results demonstrate I-Pro significantly outperforms baselines in terms of effectiveness and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-07T14:11:31Z)
• Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI [55.4046755826066]
  We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold. We discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T03:07:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.