research-article

Empathy Is All You Need: How a Conversational Agent Should Respond to Verbal Abuse

Authors:

Lebogang Wame Molefi,

Mun Yong YiAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Pages 1 - 13

https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376461

Published: 23 April 2020 Publication History

Abstract

With the popularity of AI-infused systems, conversational agents (CAs) are becoming essential in diverse areas, offering new functionality and convenience, but simultaneously, suffering misuse and verbal abuse. We examine whether conversational agents' response styles under varying abuse types influence those emotions found to mitigate peoples' aggressive behaviors, involving three verbal abuse types (Insult, Threat, Swearing) and three response styles (Avoidance, Empathy, Counterattacking). Ninety-eight participants were assigned to one of the abuse type conditions, interacted with the three spoken (voice-based) CAs in turn, and reported their feelings about guiltiness, anger, and shame after each session. The results show that the agent's response style has a significant effect on user emotions. Participants were less angry and more guilty with the empathy agent than the other two agents. Furthermore, we investigated the current status of commercial CAs' responses to verbal abuse. Our study findings have direct implications for the design of conversational agents.

References

[1]

2017. Gartner Says Worldwide Spending on VPA-Enabled Wireless Speakers Will Top 3.5 Billion dollar by 2021. (2017). Retrieved September 19, 2019 from https://gtnr.it/2AfUFOx

[2]

2018. Siri owns 46% of the mobile voice assistant market - one and half times Google Assistant's share of the market. (2018). Retrieved September 19, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2kswQ0S

[3]

2018. U.S. Smart Speaker Users Rise to 57 Million. (2018). Retrieved September 19, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2yLhtnV

[4]

Lindsey Susan Aloia and Denise Haunani Solomon. 2016. Emotions associated with verbal aggression expression and suppression. Western Journal of Communication 80, 1 (2016), 3--20.

[5]

Carolyn M Anderson and Matthew M Martin. 1999. The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups. Communication Reports 12, 1 (1999), 21--31.

[6]

M Astrid, Nicole C Krämer, Jonathan Gratch, and Sin-Hwa Kang. 2010. "It doesn't matter what you are!" Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Computers in Human Behavior 26, 6 (2010), 1641--1650.

Digital Library

[7]

Jeffrey J Bailey and Michael A McCollough. 2000. Emotional labor and the difficult customer: Coping strategies of service agents and organizational consequences. Journal of Professional Services Marketing 20, 2 (2000), 51--72.

[8]

Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulic, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics 1, 1 (2009), 71--81.

[9]

Keith H Basso. 1974. Basic conversation rules. Unpublished manuscript (1974).

[10]

Sheryl Brahnam. 2005. Strategies for handling customer abuse of ECAs. Abuse: The darker side of human-computer interaction (2005), 62--67.

[11]

Sheryl Brahnam and Antonella De Angeli. 2012. Gender affordances of conversational agents. Interacting with Computers 24, 3 (2012), 139--153.

Digital Library

[12]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.

[13]

Scott Brave, Clifford Nass, and Kevin Hutchinson. 2005. Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International journal of human-computer studies 62, 2 (2005), 161--178.

Digital Library

[14]

Arnold H Buss and Mark Perry. 1992. The aggression questionnaire. Journal of personality and social psychology 63, 3 (1992), 452.

[15]

Richard Catrambone, John Stasko, and Jun Xiao. 2004. ECA as user interface paradigm. In From brows to trust. Springer, 239--267.

[16]

Gary Charness, Uri Gneezy, and Michael A Kuhn. 2012. Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81, 1 (2012), 1--8.

[17]

Ana Paula Chaves and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2018. Single or Multiple Conversational Agents?: An Interactional Coherence Comparison. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 191.

Digital Library

[18]

Hyojin Chin and Mun Yong Yi. 2019. Should an Agent Be Ignoring It?: A Study of Verbal Abuse Types and Conversational Agents' Response Styles. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '19). ACM, NY, NY, USA, Article LBW2422, 6 pages.

Digital Library

[19]

Leon Ciechanowski, Aleksandra Przegalinska, Mikolaj Magnuski, and Peter Gloor. 2019. In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human--chatbot interaction. Future Generation Computer Systems 92 (2019), 539--548.

Digital Library

[20]

Leigh Clark, Nadia Pantidi, Orla Cooney, Philip Doyle, Diego Garaialde, Justin Edwards, Brendan Spillane, Emer Gilmartin, Christine Murad, Cosmin Munteanu, Vincent Wade, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2019. What Makes a Good Conversation?: Challenges in Designing Truly Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). ACM, NY, NY, USA, Article 475, 12 pages.

Digital Library

[21]

Amanda Cercas Curry and Verena Rieser. 2018. # MeToo Alexa: How Conversational Systems Respond to Sexual Harassment. In Proceedings of the Second ACL Workshop on Ethics in Natural Language Processing. 7--14.

[22]

Antonella De Angeli and Sheryl Brahnam. 2008. I hate you! Disinhibition with virtual partners. Interacting with computers 20, 3 (2008), 302--310.

[23]

Maartje MA de Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Jan AGM van Dijk. 2019. Why would I use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human--Computer Interaction 34, 2 (2019), 115--173.

[24]

Sidney K D'Mello, Art Graesser, and Brandon King. 2010. Toward spoken human--computer tutorial dialogues. Human--Computer Interaction 25, 4 (2010), 289--323.

[25]

Alice H Eagly and Valerie J Steffen. 1986. Gender and aggressive behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological bulletin 100, 3 (1986), 309.

[26]

Susan Folkman. 1984. Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology 46, 4 (1984), 839.

[27]

Theresa M Glomb. 2002. Workplace anger and aggression: informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of occupational health psychology 7, 1 (2002), 20.

[28]

Ruhama Goussinsky. 2012. Coping with customer aggression. Journal of Service Management 23, 2 (2012), 170--196.

[29]

Alicia A Grandey, David N Dickter, and Hock-Peng Sin. 2004. The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 25, 3 (2004), 397--418.

[30]

Alicia A Grandey, Julie H Kern, and Michael R Frone. 2007. Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of occupational health psychology 12, 1 (2007), 63.

[31]

Harold G Grasmick and Robert J Bursik Jr. 1990. Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and society review (1990), 837--861.

[32]

Harold G Grasmick, Robert J Bursik Jr, and Karyl A Kinsey. 1991. Shame and embarrassment as deterrents to noncompliance with the law: The case of an antilittering campaign. Environment and Behavior 23, 2 (1991), 233--251.

[33]

Jonathan Grudin and Richard Jacques. 2019. Chatbots, Humbots, and the Quest for Artificial General Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 209.

Digital Library

[34]

Annie Hogh and Andrea Dofradottir. 2001. Coping with bullying in the workplace. European journal of work and organizational psychology 10, 4 (2001), 485--495.

[35]

Tianran Hu, Anbang Xu, Zhe Liu, Quanzeng You, Yufan Guo, Vibha Sinha, Jiebo Luo, and Rama Akkiraju. 2018. Touch Your Heart: A Tone-aware Chatbot for Customer Care on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 415.

Digital Library

[36]

Dominic A Infante, Bruce L Riddle, Cary L Horvath, and Sherlyn-Ann Tumlin. 1992. Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly 40, 2 (1992), 116--126.

[37]

Carroll E Izard. 1993. The Differential Emotions Scale: DES IV-A;[a Method of Measuring the Meaning of Subjective Experience of Discrete Emotions]. University of Delaware.

[38]

Hanna L Jóhannsdóttir and Ragnar F Ólafsson. 2004. Coping with bullying in the workplace: the effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 32, 3 (2004), 319--333.

[39]

Eun-Ju Lee. 2010. The more human-like, the better? How speech type and users cognitive style affect social responses to computers. Computers in Human Behavior 26, 4 (2010), 665--672.

Digital Library

[40]

Jennifer Loh, Flora Calleja, and Simon Lloyd D Restubog. 2011. Words That Hurt: A Qualitative Study of s Parental Verbal Abuse in the Philippines. Journal of interpersonal violence 26, 11 (2011), 2244--2263.

[41]

Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. Like having a really bad PA: the gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 5286--5297.

Digital Library

[42]

Shaista Malik, Susan B Sorenson, and Carol S Aneshensel. 1997. Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of adolescent health 21, 5 (1997), 291--302.

[43]

Nikolas Martelaro, Victoria C Nneji, Wendy Ju, and Pamela Hinds. 2016. Tell me more: Designing hri to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 181--188.

[44]

MM Martin and CM Anderson. 1996. Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 11, 3 (1996), 547.

[45]

Matthew M Martin and Carolyn M Anderson. 1995. Roommate similarity: Are roommates who are similar in their communication traits more satisfied? Communication Research Reports 12, 1 (1995), 46--52.

[46]

Matthew M Martin, Carolyn M Anderson, and Cary L Horvath. 1996. Feelings about verbal aggression: Justifications for sending and hurt from receiving verbally aggressive messages. Communication Research Reports 13, 1 (1996), 19--26.

[47]

Masahiro Mori, Karl F MacDorman, and Norri Kageki. 2012. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 19, 2 (2012), 98--100.

[48]

Stephen O Murray. 1985. Toward a model of members' methods for recognizing interruptions. Language in Society 14, 1 (1985), 31--40.

[49]

Dina G Okamoto, Lisa Slattery Rashotte, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 2002. Measuring interruption: Syntactic and contextual methods of coding conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 65, 1 (2002), 38.

[50]

Martin Porcheron, Joel E Fischer, Stuart Reeves, and Sarah Sharples. 2018. Voice interfaces in everyday life. In proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 640.

Digital Library

[51]

Helmut Prendinger and Mitsuru Ishizuka. 2005. The empathic companion: A character-based interface that addresses users' affective states. Applied Artificial Intelligence 19, 3--4 (2005), 267--285.

[52]

Amanda Purington, Jessie G Taft, Shruti Sannon, Natalya N Bazarova, and Samuel Hardman Taylor. 2017. Alexa is my new BFF: social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the amazon echo. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2853--2859.

Digital Library

[53]

Lingyun Qiu and Izak Benbasat. 2005. Online consumer trust and live help interfaces: The effects of text-to-speech voice and three-dimensional avatars. International journal of human-computer interaction 19, 1 (2005), 75--94.

[54]

Byron Reeves and Clifford Ivar Nass. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge university press.

Digital Library

[55]

JRSJ Riebel, Reinhold S Jäger, and Uwe C Fischer. 2009. Cyberbullying in Germany--an exploration of prevalence, overlapping with real life bullying and coping strategies. Psychology Science Quarterly 51, 3 (2009), 298--314.

[56]

Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. Elsevier, 7--55.

[57]

Michael F Schober, Frederick G Conrad, Christopher Antoun, Patrick Ehlen, Stefanie Fail, Andrew L Hupp, Michael Johnston, Lucas Vickers, H Yanna Yan, and Chan Zhang. 2015. Precision and disclosure in text and voice interviews on smartphones. PloS one 10, 6 (2015), e0128337.

[58]

GR Semin and Monica Rubini. 1990. Unfolding the concept of person by verbal abuse. European Journal of Social Psychology 20, 6 (1990), 463--474.

[59]

Ellen A Skinner, Kathleen Edge, Jeffrey Altman, and Hayley Sherwood. 2003. Searching for the structure of coping: a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological bulletin 129, 2 (2003), 216.

[60]

R Nathan Spreng*, Margaret C McKinnon*, Raymond A Mar, and Brian Levine. 2009. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of personality assessment 91, 1 (2009), 62--71.

[61]

Teresa Elizabeth Stone, Margaret McMillan, and Mike Hazelton. 2015. Back to swear one: A review of English language literature on swearing and cursing in Western health settings. Aggression and violent behavior 25 (2015), 65--74.

[62]

Jeffrey Stuewig and June Price Tangney. 2007. Shame and guilt in antisocial and risky behaviors. The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (2007), 371--388.

[63]

Xiang Zhi Tan, Marynel Vázquez, Elizabeth J Carter, Cecilia G Morales, and Aaron Steinfeld. 2018. Inducing bystander interventions during robot abuse with social mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 169--177.

Digital Library

[64]

June Price Tangney, Jeffrey Stuewig, and Debra J Mashek. 2007. What's moral about the self-conscious emotions. The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (2007), 21--37.

[65]

June P Tangney, Patricia Wagner, Carey Fletcher, and Richard Gramzow. 1992. Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of personality and social psychology 62, 4 (1992), 669.

[66]

June Price Tangney, Patricia E Wagner, Deborah Hill-Barlow, Donna E Marschall, and Richard Gramzow. 1996. Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of personality and social psychology 70, 4 (1996), 797.

[67]

Bennett J Tepper. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of management 33, 3 (2007), 261--289.

[68]

Mike Thelwall. 2008. Fk yea I swear: cursing and gender in MySpace. Corpora 3, 1 (2008), 83--107.

[69]

Stephen G Tibbetts. 2003. Self-conscious emotions and criminal offending. Psychological reports 93, 1 (2003), 101--126.

[70]

Philip E Varca. 2004. Service skills for service workers: emotional intelligence and beyond. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 14, 6 (2004), 457--467.

[71]

George Veletsianos, Cassandra Scharber, and Aaron Doering. 2008. When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescents and a female pedagogical agent. Interacting with computers 20, 3 (2008), 292--301.

[72]

Adam Waytz, Joy Heafner, and Nicholas Epley. 2014. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 52 (2014), 113--117.

[73]

Blay Whitby. 2008. Sometimes it's hard to be a robot: A call for action on the ethics of abusing artificial agents. Interacting with Computers 20, 3 (2008), 326--333.

Digital Library

[74]

Kun Xu and Matthew Lombard. 2017. Persuasive computing: Feeling peer pressure from multiple computer agents. Computers in Human Behavior 74 (2017), 152--162.

Cited By

Hill Cummings KHerhausen DRoggeveen AGrewal D(2024)Countering Virtual Brand Sabotage: The Power of Informative ResponsesJournal of Service Research10.1177/10946705241254176Online publication date: 16-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705241254176
Seaborn KSawa YWatanabe M(2024)Coimagining the Future of Voice Assistants with Cultural SensitivityHuman Behavior and Emerging Technologies10.1155/2024/32387372024(1-21)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/3238737
Genç UVerma H(2024)Situating Empathy in HCI/CSCW: A Scoping ReviewProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870528:CSCW2(1-37)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687052
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Empathy Is All You Need: How a Conversational Agent Should Respond to Verbal Abuse
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence
      1. Intelligent agents
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
      1. User studies
  2. Ubiquitous and mobile computing
    1. Ubiquitous and mobile devices
      1. Personal digital assistants

Recommendations

Should an Agent Be Ignoring It?: A Study of Verbal Abuse Types and Conversational Agents' Response Styles
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Verbal abuse is a hostile form of communication ill-intended to harm the other person. With a plethora of AI solutions around, the other person being targeted may be a conversational agent. In this study, involving 3 verbal abuse types (Insult, Threat, ...
Changes in verbal and nonverbal conversational behavior in long-term interaction
ICMI '12: Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimodal interaction

We present an empirical investigation of conversational behavior in dyadic interaction spanning multiple conversations, in the context of a developing interpersonal relationship between a health counselor and her clients. Using a longitudinal video ...
Exploring the Dark Corners of Human-Chatbot Interactions: A Literature Review on Conversational Agent Abuse
Chatbot Research and Design
Abstract
Agent abuse is emerging as a significant concern in the realm of human-chatbot interactions. Despite the relevance of this phenomenon, from a social and psychological perspective, there have been relatively few published studies on the topic over ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2020

10688 pages

ISBN:9781450367080

DOI:10.1145/3313831

General Chairs:
Regina Bernhaupt
Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
,
Florian 'Floyd' Mueller
Monash University, Australia
,
David Verweij
Newcastle University, UK
,
Josh Andres
RMIT, Australia
,
Program Chairs:
Joanna McGrenere
University of British Columbia, Canada
,
Andy Cockburn
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
,
Ignacio Avellino
University of Maryland Baltimore County, USA
,
Alix Goguey
Grenoble Alpes University, France
,
Pernille Bjørn
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
,
Shengdong (Shen) Zhao
National University of Singapore, Singapore
,
Briane Paul Samson
Future University Hakodate, Japan & De La Salle University, Philippines
,
Rafal Kocielnik
University of Washington, USA

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 April 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

CHI '20

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 25 - 30, 2020

HI, Honolulu, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025

Sponsor:
sigchi

ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 26 - May 1, 2025

Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

56
Total Citations
View Citations
2,274
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)358
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)39

Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Hill Cummings KHerhausen DRoggeveen AGrewal D(2024)Countering Virtual Brand Sabotage: The Power of Informative ResponsesJournal of Service Research10.1177/10946705241254176Online publication date: 16-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705241254176
Seaborn KSawa YWatanabe M(2024)Coimagining the Future of Voice Assistants with Cultural SensitivityHuman Behavior and Emerging Technologies10.1155/2024/32387372024(1-21)Online publication date: 25-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/3238737
Genç UVerma H(2024)Situating Empathy in HCI/CSCW: A Scoping ReviewProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870528:CSCW2(1-37)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687052
Oh JIm HLee S(2024)Toward a Third-Kind Voice for Conversational Agents in an Era of Blurring Boundaries Between Machine and Human SoundsProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665880(1-7)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640794.3665880
Ruitenburg YLee MIJsselsteijn WMarkopoulos P(2024)Seeking Truth, Comfort, and Connection: How Conversational User Interfaces can help Couples with Dementia Manage Reality DisjunctionProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665547(1-15)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640794.3665547
Chin JDesai SLin SMejia S(2024)Like My Aunt Dorothy: Effects of Conversational Styles on Perceptions, Acceptance and Metaphorical Descriptions of Voice Assistants during Later AdulthoodProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373658:CSCW1(1-21)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637365
Lakier MVogel D(2024)Digital Knick-Knacks: Standalone Audiovisual Digital Possessions or Embellishments in Digital EnvironmentsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642695(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642695
Luo YLiu SWu DWang HPan Y(2024)"Please Be Nice": Robot Responses to User Bullying - Measuring Performance Across Aggression LevelsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642290(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642290
Wester JSchrills TPohl Hvan Berkel N(2024)“As an AI language model, I cannot”: Investigating LLM Denials of User RequestsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642135(1-14)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642135
Schmidmaier MRupp JCvetanova DMayer S(2024)Perceived Empathy of Technology Scale (PETS): Measuring Empathy of Systems Toward the UserProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642035(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642035
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents