Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3334480.3375227acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

How's Your Day Look? The (Un)Expected Sociolinguistic Effects of User Modeling in a Conversational Agent

Published: 25 April 2020 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    We performed an ex situ Wizard of Oz study of young adults interacting with an idealized digital personal assistant to discuss daily scheduling concerns and stress levels. We further varied rates of "learning" and personalization with the system to test user preferences and changes in participants' linguistic and psychological interactions with an unadapted versus adapted user model, and to determine whether those changes were attributable to acclimatization with the system or to the modeling capabilities, seeking to address 3 research questions: What are the psycholinguistic characteristics of user interactions with a dialogue system designed to act as a scheduling assistant? How does a system's ability to learn about a user and maintain a user model affect these interactions? Are changes in interaction styles uniquely attributable to user modeling ability rather than simply user familiarity or acclimation with the system? We present a linguistic analysis of the results using summary measures generated by a widely used psycholinguistic text analysis tool. Some of the measures seem to present the slightly paradoxical effect of reduced user engagement when a conversational agent explicitly discloses information about its user model to the user. These results suggest that future studies should take care to consider the degree to which the user model is directly exposed to the user. That is, being overly forthcoming about what has been learned about a user may undermine attempts to tailor conversational agents to actively engage and relate to users.

    References

    [1]
    Ana Paula Chaves and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2019. How should my chatbot interact? A survey on human-chatbot interaction design. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02743 (2019).
    [2]
    Benjamin R Cowan, Nadia Pantidi, David Coyle, Kellie Morrissey, Peter Clarke, Sara Al-Shehri, David Earley, and Natasha Bandeira. 2017. What can I help you with?: Infrequent users' experiences of intelligent personal assistants. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 43.
    [3]
    Paul Grice. 1989. Logic and Conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, 22--40.
    [4]
    John F Kelley. 1984. An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 2, 1 (1984), 26--41.
    [5]
    Clemens Kirschbaum, Karl-Martin Pirke, and Dirk H Hellhammer. 1993. The "Trier Social Stress Test"--a tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology 28, 1--2 (1993), 76--81.
    [6]
    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. 5286--5297.
    [7]
    Joao Luis Zeni Montenegro, Cristiano André da Costa, and Rodrigo da Rosa Righi. 2019. Survey of conversational agents in health. Expert Systems with Applications (2019).
    [8]
    James W Pennebaker, Ryan L Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn. 2015. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Technical Report.
    [9]
    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.
    [10]
    François Portet, Michel Vacher, Caroline Golanski, Camille Roux, and Brigitte Meillon. 2013. Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: Acceptability and objection aspects. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17, 1 (2013), 127--144.
    [11]
    Yla R Tausczik and James W Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29, 1 (2010), 24--54.
    [12]
    Aditya Nrusimha Vaidyam, Hannah Wisniewski, John David Halamka, Matcheri S Kashavan, and John Blake Torous. 2019. Chatbots and conversational agents in mental health: a review of the psychiatric landscape. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 64, 7 (2019), 456--464.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Volition Learning: What Would You Prefer to Prefer?Artificial Intelligence in HCI10.1007/978-3-031-35891-3_35(555-574)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2023
    • (2021)Conversational Agents: Goals, Technologies, Vision and ChallengesSensors10.3390/s2124844821:24(8448)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2021
    • (2021)Improving User Experience of Virtual Health Assistants: Scoping ReviewJournal of Medical Internet Research10.2196/3173723:12(e31737)Online publication date: 21-Dec-2021

    Index Terms

    1. How's Your Day Look? The (Un)Expected Sociolinguistic Effects of User Modeling in a Conversational Agent

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI EA '20: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2020
          4474 pages
          ISBN:9781450368193
          DOI:10.1145/3334480
          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Sponsors

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          Published: 25 April 2020

          Check for updates

          Author Tags

          1. conversational agents
          2. personal digital assistants
          3. user modeling
          4. voice interactions
          5. wizard of oz

          Qualifiers

          • Extended-abstract

          Funding Sources

          • University of Minnesota

          Conference

          CHI '20
          Sponsor:

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)31
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
          Reflects downloads up to 11 Aug 2024

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          Cited By

          View all
          • (2023)Volition Learning: What Would You Prefer to Prefer?Artificial Intelligence in HCI10.1007/978-3-031-35891-3_35(555-574)Online publication date: 23-Jul-2023
          • (2021)Conversational Agents: Goals, Technologies, Vision and ChallengesSensors10.3390/s2124844821:24(8448)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2021
          • (2021)Improving User Experience of Virtual Health Assistants: Scoping ReviewJournal of Medical Internet Research10.2196/3173723:12(e31737)Online publication date: 21-Dec-2021

          View Options

          Get Access

          Login options

          View options

          PDF

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format.

          HTML Format

          Media

          Figures

          Other

          Tables

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media