Cover not available
Article published In:
What Influences Influence? How the Communicative Situation Influences Persuasion
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Jaap Ham
[Interaction Studies 22:3] 2021
► pp. 464–487

Influencing robot influence

Personalization of persuasive robots

 | Eindhoven University of Technology
In the near future, robots will function in social roles and attempt to influence the user’s behavior and / or thinking. The current contribution analyses how to influence robot influence: Persuasive robots can be personalized to make them more effective. We present an overview of (1) the user characteristics to which persuasive robots can be personalized, (2) considering the specific current situation of a user; and (3) the robot characteristics that can be personalized. Thereby, we give an overview of how the persuasive robot’s physical appearance, behavior, (perceived) cognition and affect can be influenced to characteristics of the user (personalized) in order to make the robot more persuasive and thereby to understand better how the persuasive power of an embodied artificial social entity can be influenced.
Keywords: robot influence, personalization, persuasive robots, persuasive technology, behavior change systems
Article outline
  • Influencing robot influence: Personalization of persuasive robots
  • Persuasive technology and influencing robots
  • Determinants of influence of persuasive technology
  • Personalization of persuasive robots
  • User characteristics
  • Automaticity of persuasion
  • Situalization of personalization
  • Persuasive robot characteristics
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 28 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.00012.ham
References (103)
References
Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27 (3), 379–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albert, S., & Dabbs, J. M., Jr. (1970). Physical distance and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15 (3), 265–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, D. D., Vonasch, A., & Bartneck, C. (2021). The doors of social robot perception: The Influence of Implicit Self-theories. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrist, S., Ziadee, M., Boukaram, H., Mutlu, B., & Sakr, M. (2015). Effects of Culture on the Credibility of Robot Speech: A Comparison between English and Arabic. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction . 2015. DOI logo
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41 (3): 258–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, Leadership and Men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
Bailenson, J. & Yee, N. (2005). Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science, 16 1, 814–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berdichevsky, D., & Neuschwander, E. (1999, May). Toward an ethics of persuasive technology. Communications of the ACM, 51–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2012). Influencing Individually: Fusing Personalization and Persuasion. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS). 2 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernotat, J., & Eyssel, F., & Sachse, J. (2019). The (Fe)male Robot: How Robot Body Shape Impacts First Impressions and Trust Towards Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982). “The need for cognition”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1): 116–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (5), 1032–1043. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chidambaram, V., Chiang, Y-H., & Mutlu, B. (2012). Designing persuasive robots: how robots might persuade people using vocal and nonverbal cues. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 293–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (p. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: the psychology of persuasion. William Morrow and Company, New York.Google Scholar
Compton, J. (2013). Inoculation theory. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 220–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Crano, W. & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and Persuasion. Annual review of psychology. 571. 345–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, A. (2008). The Psychology of Tailoring-Ingredients in Computer-Tailored Persuasion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2 1: 765–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, A., & Ballast, K. (2012). Personalization and perceived personal relevance in computer-tailored persuasion in smoking cessation. British Journal of Health Psychology, 171, 60–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epley, N., Waytz, A. & Cacioppo, J. (2007). On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism. Psychological review, 114 1, 864–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eyssel, F. A., & Pfundmair, M. (2015). Predictors of psychological anthropomorphization, mind perception, and the fulfillment of social needs: A case study with a zoomorphic robot. In: Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2015): 827–832. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eyssel, F. A., & Reich, N. (2013). Loneliness makes the heart grow fonder (of robots). On the effects of loneliness on psychological anthropomorphism. In: Kuzuoka, H., ed. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2013). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press: 121–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., Jensen, L. C., & Zitzmann, N. (2022). Sharing the situational context influences a speaker’s (a robot’s) persuasiveness. Interaction Studies, in this volume.Google Scholar
Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (Persuasive ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 401, 1–7. DOI logo
Fountoukidou, S., Ham, J., Matzat, U., & Midden, C. (2020). Persuasive design principles and user models for people with motor disabilities. In: Spiros Nikolopoulos, Chandan Kumar & Ioannis Kompatsiaris (Eds): Signal Processing to Drive Human-Computer Interaction: EEG and eye-controlled interfaces. The Institution of Engineering and Technology, ISBN: 978-1-78561-919-9.Google Scholar
Ghazali, A. (2019). Designing social cues for effective persuasive robots. Thesis published at Eindhoven University of Technology.
Ghazali, A. S., Ham, J., Barakova, E. I., & Markopoulos, P. (2018b). Poker face influence: Persuasive robot with minimal social cues triggers less psychological reactance. 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE RO-MAN 2018), 940–946.
Ghazali, A., Ham, J., Barakova, E., & Markopoulos, P. (2018a). Effects of robot facial characteristics and gender in persuasive human-robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghazali, A., Ham, J., Barakova, E., & Markopoulous, P. (2020). Persuasive robot acceptance model (PRAM): Roles of social responses within the acceptance model of persuasive robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Shaw, R., Bransford, J. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V. (2008). A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 1, 31, p. 472–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., & Campbell, J. B. (1998). Theories of personality, 4th ed. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Halttu, K., Oduor, M., Tikka, P., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2015). About the Persuasion Context for BCSSs: Analyzing the Contextual Factors. BCSS@PERSUASIVE 2015: 43–50.Google Scholar
Ham, J., & Midden, C. (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 Robotics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ham, J., & Spahn, A. (2015). Shall I show you some other shirts too? The ethics and psychology of social persuasive robots. In: Robert Trappl (Ed): A Construction Manual for Robot’s Ethical Systems, MIT Press 2015. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ham, J., Cuijpers, R. H., & Cabibihan, J.-J. (2015). Combining robotic persuasive strategies: The persuasive power of a storytelling robot that uses gazing and gestures. International Journal of Social Robotics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ham, J., Esch, M. van, Limpens, Y., Pee, J. de, Cabibihan, J.-J., & Ge, S. S. (2012). The automaticity of social behavior towards robots: The influence of cognitive load on interpersonal distance to approachable versus less approachable robots. In S. S. Ge et al. (Eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics, 2012, LNAI 7621, pp. 15–25, 2012. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ham, J., van Schendel, J., Koldijk, S., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Finding kairos: The influence of context-based timing on compliance with well-being triggers. Conference proceedings of Symbiotic 2016, Padua, Italy, September 2016.Google Scholar
Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (3), 239–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hemminghaus, J., & Kopp, S. (2017). Towards adaptive social behavior generation for assistive robots using reinforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, pp 332–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. A., Renfrow, D. G. (2006). Social Cognition. In: Delamater, J. (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Boston, MA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janssen, J. & Bailenson, J., Ijsselsteijn, W., & Westerink, J. (2010). Intimate Heartbeats: Opportunities for Affective Communication Technology. Affective Computing, IEEE Transactions, 1 1, 72–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaptein, M. C., Markopoulos, P., Ruyter de, B. E. R., & Aarts, E. H. L. (2015). Personalizing persuasive technologies: Explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 771, 38–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaptein, M., de Ruyter, B., Markopoulos, P., & Aarts, E. (2012). Adaptive persuasive systems: a study of tailored persuasive text messages to reduce snacking. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koranteng, F., Matzat, U., Ham, J., & Wiafe, I. (in press). The role of usability, aesthetics, usefulness and primary task support in predicting the perceived credibility of academic social networking sites. Behaviour & Information Technology. DOI logo
Korn, O., Akalin, N., & Gouveia, R. (2021). Understanding Cultural Preferences for Social Robots: A Study in German and Arab Communities. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 10 1, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, I., Kim, J., Kim, J. (2005). Use contexts for the mobile internet: a longitudinal study monitoring actual use of mobile internet services. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18(3), 269–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leite, I., Pereira, A., Castellano, G., Mascarenhas, S., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2011). Modelling empathy in social robotic companions. In: International conference on user modeling, adaptation, and personalization. Springer, pp 135–147.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Leyzberg, D., Spaulding, S., Scassellati, B. (2014). Personalizing robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 423–430. DOI logo
Maeda, R., Brščić, D., & Kanda, T. (2021). Influencing Moral Behavior Through Mere Observation of Robot Work: Video-based Survey on Littering Behavior. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 83–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makenova, Regina & Karsybayeva, Raushan & Sandygulova, Anara. (2018). Exploring Cross-cultural Differences in Persuasive Robotics. 185–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masthoff, J., Grasso, F., & Ham, J. (2014). Preface to the special issue on Personalisation and Behaviour Change. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 24 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 1 1, pp. 191–229. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michie, S., West, R., Campbell, R., Brown, J., & Gainforth, H. (2014). ABC of Behaviour Change Theories. Silverback Publishing.Google Scholar
Mileounis, A., Cuijpers, R., & Barakova, E. (2015). Creating Robots with Personality: The Effect of Personality on Social Intelligence. WINAC 2015. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Mitsunaga, N., Smith, C., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2008). Adapting robot behavior for human–robot interaction. IEEE Transactions Robot 24(4):911–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. & Gabriel, M. & Avermaet, E. (1985). Perspectives on Minority Influence. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 11 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6 1, 31, 38–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Signifiers, not affordances. Interactions, 15 1, 18–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orji, R. (2014). Exploring the Persuasiveness of Behavior Change Support Strategies and Possible Gender Differences. Workshop on Behavior Change Support Systems at the International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 2014.
Orji, R., Kaptein, M., Ham, J., Oyibo, K., & Nwokeji, J. C. (2018). Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Personalization in Persuasive Technology co-located with the 13th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, PPT@PERSUASIVE 2018, Waterloo, Canada, April 16, 2018. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2089, CEUR-WS.org 2018.Google Scholar
Orji, R., Nacke, L. E., & Di Marco, C. (2017). Towards personality-driven persuasive health games and gamified systems. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human, 2017. DOI logo
Orji, R., Vassileva, J., & Mandryk, R. L. (2014). Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 24 (5), 453–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oyibo, K., Orji, R., Ham, J., Nwokeji, J. C., & Ciocarlan, A. (2019). Special issue on Personalizing Persuasive Technologies. Information, 2019, 10.Google Scholar
Oyibo, K., Orji, R. & Vassileva, J. (2017). Investigation of the Persuasiveness of Social Influence in Persuasive Technology and the Effect of Age and Gender. Workshop on Personalizing Persuasive Technology at International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 32–44.
Paradeda, R. B., Martinho, C., Paiva, A. (2017). Persuasion based on personality traits: Using a social robot as storyteller. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE Human Robot Interaction conference. DOI logo
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19 (1), 123–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: current status and controversies. In: Chaiken, S., Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 41–72.Google Scholar
Rea, D. J., Schneider, S., & Kanda, T. (2021). “Is this all you can do? Harder!”: The Effects of (Im)Polite Robot Encouragement on Exercise Effort. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 225–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Ripple, L. (1955). Motivation, Capacity, and Opportunity as Related to the Use of Casework Service: Theoretical Base and Plan of Study. Social Service Review, 29 (2), 172–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritschel, H., Baur, T., Andre, E. (2017). Adapting a robot’s linguistic style based on socially-aware reinforcement learning. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, M. J. and Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Components of Attitudes. In: Rosenberg, M. J. and Hovland, C. I., Eds., Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency among Attitude Components, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Roubroeks, M., Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2011). When artificial social agents try to persuade people: The role of social agency on the occurrence of psychological reactance. International Journal of Social Robotics, 31, 155–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruijten, P. (2020). The similarity-attraction paradigm in persuasive technology: effects of system and user personality on evaluations and persuasiveness of an interactive system. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–13.Google Scholar
Ruijten, P. A. A., Midden, C. J. H., & Ham, J. (2015). Lonely and susceptible: The influence of social exclusion and gender on persuasion by an artificial agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruijten, P. A. M., Midden, C. J. H., & Ham, J. (2016). Ambiguous agents: The influence of consistency of an artificial agent’s social cues on emotion recognition, recall, and persuasiveness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 321, 734–744. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, M. D., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (Eds.). (2013). Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salomons, N., van der Linden, M., Strohkorb Sebo, S., & Scassellati, B. (2018). Humans Conform to Robots: Disambiguating Trust, Truth, and Conformity. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 187–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. & Kummert, F. (2020). Comparing Robot and Human guided Personalization: Adaptive Exercise Robots are Perceived as more Competent and Trustworthy. International Journal of Social Robotics.Google Scholar
Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., & Norton, M. I. (2009). Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: IROS 2009, pp. 2563–2568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spahn, A. (2012). and Lead Us (Not) into Persuasion…? Persuasive Technology and the Ethics of Communication. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 1, 633–650 (2012) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spelt, H. A. A., Westerink, J. H. D. M., Ham, J., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2020). Persuasion-Induced Physiology Partly Predicts Persuasion Effectiveness. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tapus, A., & Ţapus, C., & Mataric, M. (2008). User-Robot Personality Matching and Robot Behavior Adaptation for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Therapy. Intelligent Service Robotics, 1 1, 169–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trovato, G., Zecca, M., Sessa, S., Jamone, L., Ham, J., Hashimoto, K., & Takanishi, A. (2013). Cross-cultural study on human-robot greeting interaction: acceptance and discomfort by Egyptians and Japanese. Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 4 1, 83–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsiakas, K., Papakostas, M., Chebaa, B., Ebert, D., Karkaletsis, V., & Makedon, F. (2016). An interactive learning and adaptation framework for adaptive robot assisted therapy. PETRA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. & Oakes, P. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25 (3): 237–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. C.; Reynolds, K. J. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes; N. Branscombe (eds.), Rediscovering Social Identity: Core Sources. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ullrich, D., Butz, A. & Diefenbach, S. (2018). Who Do You Follow?: Social Robots’ Impact on Human Judgment. Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference, 265–266. DOI logo
United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from: [URL]
Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Persuasive technology and moral responsibility: Toward an ethical framework for persuasive technologies. Persuasive, 6 1, 1–15.Google Scholar
Verberne, F. M. M., Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2012). Trust in smart systems: The influence of sharing user goals and information on trust in and acceptance of smart systems in cars. Human Factors, 54 1, 799–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verberne, F., Ham, J., & Midden, C. (2013). The car that looks like me: Similarity cues can increase trust in the self-driving cars of the future. ERCIM News, 941, 23–24.Google Scholar
Verberne, M. F., Ham, J., & Midden, J. H. (2015). Trusting a virtual driver that looks, acts, and thinks like you. Human Factors. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wykowska, A. & Chellali, R., Al-Amin, M., & Müller, H. (2014). Implications of Robot Actions for Human Perception. How Do We Represent Actions of the Observed Robots?. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wykowska, A. (2020). Social Robots to Test Flexibility of Human Social Cognition. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12 1, 1203–1211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
You, S., Robert, L., Alahmad, R., Esterwood, C., & Zhang, Q. (2020). A Review of Personality in Human-Robot Interactions. Foundations and Trends in Information Systems.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

LACROIX, Dimitri, Ricarda Wullenkord & Friederike Eyssel
2023. Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 580 ff. DOI logo
Oyibo, Kiemute, Kang Wang & Plinio Pelegrini Morita
2023. Using Smart Home Technologies to Promote Physical Activity Among the General and Aging Populations: Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 25 ► pp. e41942 ff. DOI logo
Song, Heqiu, Shiyuan Huang, Emilia Barakova, Jaap Ham & Panos Markopoulos
2023. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo
Williams, Tom
2023. Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Williams, Tom
2024. Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.