人工智能沟通策略对健康说服是否重要？视觉健康教育中的三种原型比较
Does AI communication strategy matter for health persuasion? Comparing three archetypes in visual health education.
摘要(中文译文)
人工智能（AI）系统日益被探索作为视觉健康教育工具，但其沟通风格是否影响说服效果仍不明确。本研究比较了三种AI沟通策略原型，以检验情感路径或认知路径哪一者更能驱动行为意向。在一项前后测准实验设计中，367名中国大学生（84.5%患有近视）被分配与三种体现不同沟通策略原型的AI健康助手之一进行互动：共情伙伴型（温暖、幽默、获益框架）、权威专家型（专业、严肃、损失框架）或客观信息型（中立、数据驱动、平衡框架）。采用HEAT（人与AI技术健康参与）框架从三个维度评估结果：信息加工、关系参与和行动赋能。三种原型均产生了显著的前后测知识增长（均 > 1.0）。然而，它们在关系性和动机性结果上出现分化。共情伙伴型引发的感知关系质量显著更强（ = 4.47 vs. 4.09和4.15， < 0.001， = 0.68）、对所学知识的信心更高（ = 0.001）、行为意向更强（ = 0.011），均优于其他两种原型。控制基线得分的分层回归显示，AI关系质量是行为意向最强的独立预测因子（β = 0.346， < 0.001），而知识获取未贡献显著的额外方差（β = -0.024， = 0.557）。当相同的健康内容通过不同的AI沟通策略传递时，感知关系质量而非信息传递数量最能决定大学生中的说服效果。这些发现提示，面向年轻成年人群体的AI健康助手应优先采用共情的、关系温暖的沟通方式。
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly explored as tools for visual health education, yet whether their communication style influences persuasive outcomes remains unclear. This study compared three AI communication strategy archetypes to test whether emotional or cognitive pathways more strongly drive behavioral intention. In a pre-post quasi-experimental design, 367 Chinese university students (84.5% with myopia) were assigned to interact with one of three AI health assistants embodying distinct communication strategy archetypes: an Empathetic Partner (warm, humorous, gain-framed), an Authoritative Expert (professional, serious, loss-framed), or an Objective Informant (neutral, data-driven, balanced-framed). Outcomes were assessed using the HEAT (Health Engagement with AI Technology) framework across three dimensions: Information Processing, Relational Engagement, and Action Empowerment. All three archetypes produced substantial pre-to-post knowledge gains (all > 1.0). However, they diverged on relational and motivational outcomes. The Empathetic Partner elicited significantly stronger perceived relationship quality ( = 4.47 vs. 4.09 and 4.15, < 0.001, = 0.68), higher confidence in acquired knowledge ( = 0.001), and greater behavioral intention ( = 0.011) than the other two archetypes. Hierarchical regression controlling for baseline scores revealed that AI relationship quality was the strongest independent predictor of behavioral intention (β = 0.346, < 0.001), whereas knowledge acquisition contributed no significant additional variance (β = -0.024, = 0.557). When identical health content is delivered through different AI communication strategies, the quality of the perceived relationship, rather than the quantity of information transferred, most strongly determines persuasive effectiveness among university students. These findings suggest that AI health assistants targeting young adult populations should prioritize empathetic, relationally warm communication.
如何引用
AMA
Chaoyuan Zuo, Yuehan Pan, Ruomo Guo, Mo Liang, Yihan Zhang, Yicheng Xia, et al. Does AI communication strategy matter for health persuasion? Comparing three archetypes in visual health education.. Frontiers in psychology. 2026; doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1832938.
APA
Chaoyuan Zuo, Yuehan Pan, Ruomo Guo, Mo Liang, Yihan Zhang, Yicheng Xia, et al (2026). Does AI communication strategy matter for health persuasion? Comparing three archetypes in visual health education.. Frontiers in psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1832938
GB/T 7714
Chaoyuan Zuo, Yuehan Pan, Ruomo Guo, Mo Liang, Yihan Zhang, Yicheng Xia, et al. Does AI communication strategy matter for health persuasion? Comparing three archetypes in visual health education.[J]. Frontiers in psychology, 2026 doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1832938.
在 PubMed增强版 阅读全文
翻译全文 · AI 文献问答 · PDF 原文下载 · 引用导出