×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
Instructions for papers
For Authors Aim & Scope Contact
Original scientific article

EMPLOYING AI TECHNOLOGIES IN PUBLIC RELATIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PERSUASIVE IMPACT OF HUMAN PRACTITIONERS AND CHATBOTS ON THE AUDIENCE

By
Dr. Ali Muhanad Hamid Orcid logo ,
Dr. Ali Muhanad Hamid

Lecturer, Department of Public Relations, College of Mass Media, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq

Dr. Aqeel Tahseen Fathalla Orcid logo ,
Dr. Aqeel Tahseen Fathalla

Lecturer, Department of Public Relations, College of Mass Media, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq

Dr. Osamah Kareem Rasheed Orcid logo ,
Dr. Osamah Kareem Rasheed

Lecturer, Department of Applied Life Sciences, College of Biotechnology, Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq

Dr. Raya Qahtan Ahmed Orcid logo
Dr. Raya Qahtan Ahmed
Contact Dr. Raya Qahtan Ahmed

Assistant Professor, Department of Public Relations, College of Mass Media, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract

Artificial intelligence chatbots have become more popular for PR communication purposes, but there is not much data available about their persuasive abilities relative to human PR communication professionals in various forms of communication. A descriptive comparative research methodology was used in this study in order to measure the perceptions of people about the AI chatbots and human PR professionals. The data was collected from 150 respondents living in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, with the help of a structured questionnaire, which included 12 questions. The data was analyzed through IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29.0 by calculating the frequencies and percentages. As per the results, AI chatbots emerged as more persuasive with regard to communication characteristics (89.3%), organization of the contents (89.3%), presentation (80.0%), creation of multimedia (78.7%), creativity and innovation (79.3%), quick responses (74.7%), and the economic aspect of communication (76.0%). In addition, chatbots are more preferred by respondents when it comes to communication on personal issues (68.0%), social issues (60.0%), and technical support (62.7%). On the other hand, human public relations professionals scored high in psychological/emotional interaction (72.0%), ethical communication (68.0%), political issues (65.3%), religious issues (76.0%), and flexibility of communication. The results indicate that the success of AI chatbots and human public relations in persuasion relies on the goals of communication. The use of AI chatbots is more appropriate in terms of delivering efficient and informative communication. In contrast, humans play a crucial role in conveying emotional, ethical, and trust-based communications. The research indicates the appropriateness of using hybrid public relations strategies.

References

1.
Feine J, Gnewuch U, Morana S, Maedche A. A Taxonomy of Social Cues for Conversational Agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2019;132:138–61.
2.
Adam M, Wessel M, Benlian A. AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance. Electronic Markets. 2020;31(2):427–45.
3.
Zheng Q, Tang Y, Liu Y, Liu W, Huang Y. UX Research on Conversational Human-AI Interaction: A Literature Review of the ACM Digital Library. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM; 2022. p. 1–24.
4.
Sari H, Adinda R. Examining Customer Experience in Using a Chatbot. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management. 2023;14(1):1–16.
5.
Gunkel D. Communication and artificial intelligence: Opportunities and challenges for the 21st century. communication+ 1. 2012;(1).

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the  Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

Issue image
Issue 36, 2026
See full issue

Citations

Crossref Logo

0

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.