Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3406522.3446018acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

User Perceptions of an Intelligent Personal Assistant's Personality: The Role of Interaction Context

Published: 14 March 2021 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    This paper reports on an experimental study that examined user perceptions of Amazon Alexa's personality, as well as influences of stressful or non-stressful interactions on personality perceptions. The study relied on the Five-Factor Model and the Stereotype Content Model personality frameworks. An online data collection instrument was designed to give Alexa's users (N=50) stressful and non-stressful tasks followed by questions related to Alexa's personality. The assumption was that stressful and non-stressful tasks would frame a user's preference for Alexa's personality. Quantitative data of the participants? ratings of Alexa's responses, and qualitative comments about their ratings, experiences, and thoughts about Alexa were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, tests of association, and thematic content analysis. The findings indicated that while the majority of users appreciate Alexa's personality as a way of making interactions more personal and enjoyable, some users prefer their conversational agent to be efficient, robotic-like, and devoid of a personality that might cause attachment. The participants described Alexa as competent in terms of information content and usability, and warm in terms of its personality manifestation, but wanted their ideal Alexa to be even more competent and warm. After experiencing stressful and non-stressful experimental conditions, the participants appreciated Alexa's highly competent and highly warm responses, while disparaging low-warmth/high-competence responses. The participants' comments indicated that after stressful tasks, they were more generous in their assessment of Alexa's performance, and valued manifestations of Alexa's warmth higher than after non-stressful tasks. Additionally, after the second group of tasks/towards the end of the study, the participants tended to score low warmth/high competence responses higher, which might indicate a slight preference for competence after longer interactions or a user's fatigued state. The implications of the findings on the design of conversational interfaces and study limitations are discussed.

    References

    [1]
    Jennifer L. Aaker, Emily N. Garbinsky, and Kathleen D. Vohs. 2012. Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth, competence, and landing in the 'golden quadrant.' Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, 2, 191--194.
    [2]
    Jennifer L. Aaker, Kathleen Vohs and Cassie Mogilner. 2010. Non-Profits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter. Journal of Consumer Research 37, 2, 224--237.
    [3]
    Andrea E. Abele and Susanne Brack. 2013. Preference for other persons? traits is dependent on the kind of social relationship. Social Psychology 44, 2 (2013), 84--94.
    [4]
    Shazia Afzal, Bryan Dempsey, Cassius D'Helon, Nirmal Mukhi, Milena Pribic, Aaron Sickler, Peggy Strong, Mira Vanchiswar, and Lorin Wilde. 2019. The Personality of AI Systems in Education: Experiences with the Watson Tutor, a one-on-one virtual tutoring system. Childhood Education 95, 1, 44--52.
    [5]
    Amazon Alexa (2019). Amazon Echo & Alexa Brand Guidelines. htps://m.mediaamazon.com/images/G/01/mobile-apps/dex/alexa/alexaauto/EchoAlexaGuideExternal.pdf
    [6]
    Christoph Bartneck, Juliane Reichenbach, and Julie Carpenter. 2006. Use of Praise and Punishment in Human-Robot Collaborative Teams. In ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 177--182.
    [7]
    Scott S. Bateman, Carl A. Gutwin, and Gordon I. McCalla. 2013. Social navigation for loosely-coupled information seeking in tightly-knit groups using webwear. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 955--966.
    [8]
    Nicholas J. Belkin, Helen M. Brooks, and Penny J. Daniels. 1987. Knowledge elicitation using discourse analysis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27, 2, 127--144.
    [9]
    Frank Bentley, Chris Luvogt, Max Silverman, Rushani Wirasinghe, Brooke White, and Danielle Lottrjdge. 2018. Understanding the Long-Term Use of Smart Speaker Assistants. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 3, 1--24.
    [10]
    Tammy L. Bess and Robert J. Harvey. 2002. Bimodal score distributions and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Fact or artifact? Journal of Personality Assessment 78, 1, 176--186.
    [11]
    Beatrice Biancardi, Maurizio Mancini, Paul Lerner, and Catherine Pelachaud. 2019. Managing an Agent's Self-Presentational Strategies During an Interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6.
    [12]
    Holly P. Branigan, Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson, and Janet F. McLean. 2010. Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 9, 2355--2368. doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.012
    [13]
    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2, 77--101. (p.79)
    [14]
    Raluca Budiu. 2019. Mental Models for Intelligent Assistants. Retrieved June 10, 2020 from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/mental-model-ai-assistants/
    [15]
    Katriina Bystrom and Kalervo Jarvelin. 1995. Task Complexity Affects Information Seeking and Use. Information Processing & Management 31, 2, 191--213.
    [16]
    Linda G. Castillo, Flor V. Perez, Rosalinda Castillo, and Mona R. Ghosheh. 2010. Construction and initial validation of the Marianismo Beliefs Scale. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 23, 2, 163--175.
    [17]
    Yuting Chen, Adeel Naveed, and Robert Porzel. 2010. Behavior and preference in minimal personality: a study on embodied conversational agents. In International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces and the Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction (ICMI-MLMI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 49, 1--4.
    [18]
    Michael Crabb and Vicki Hanson. 2016. An analysis of age, technology usage, and cognitive characteristics within information retrieval tasks. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 8, 3, 10.
    [19]
    Amy J. C. Cuddy, Susan T. Fiske, and Peter Glick. 2008. Warmth and Competence as Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, 61--149.
    [20]
    Amy J. C. Cuddy, Matthew Kohut, and John Neffinger. 2013. Connect, Then Lead. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved October 1, 2020 from https://hbr.org/2013/07/connect-then-lead
    [21]
    Virginie Demeure, Radoslaw Niewiadomski, and Catherine Pelachaud. 2011. How Is Believability of a Virtual Agent Related to Warmth, Competence, Personification, and Embodiment? Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 20, 5, 431--448.
    [22]
    Christopher D. Dryer. 1999. Getting personal with computers: How to design personalities for agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 13, 3 (April 1999), 273--295. (page 273)
    [23]
    Allen L. Edwards. 1959. Edwards personal preference schedule. Psychological Corporation, New York, NY.
    [24]
    David Elsweiler, Max L. Wilson, and Brian Kirkegaard Lunn. 2011. Understanding Casual-Leisure Information Behaviour. New Directions in Information Behaviour, 211--241.
    [25]
    Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 4, 864--886.
    [26]
    Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, and Peter Glick. 2007. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, 2, 77--83.
    [27]
    Joseph Forgas. 1995. Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological bulletin 117, 39--66.
    [28]
    Susan Fournier and Claudio Alvarez. 2012. Brands as relationship partners: Warmth, competence, and in-between. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, 2, 177--185.
    [29]
    Li Gong. 2008. How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 4, 1494--1509.
    [30]
    Georgios Halkias and Adamantios Diamantopoulos. 2020. Universal dimensions of individuals? perception: Revisiting the operationalization of warmth and competence with a mixed-method approach. International Journal of Research in Marketing.
    [31]
    Bjoern S. Ivens, Alexander Leischnig, Brigitte Muller, and Katharina Valta. 2015. On the Role of Brand Stereotypes in Shaping Consumer Response toward Brands: An Empirical Examination of Direct and Mediating Effects of Warmth and Competence. Psychology & Marketing 32, 8, 808--820.
    [32]
    Khari Johnson. 2018. Amazon says Alexa is an ESFJ (Updated). Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/25/amazon-says-alexa-is-an-estj/
    [33]
    Daniel Kahneman and Shane Frederick. 2007. Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 45--46.
    [34]
    Nicolas Kervyn, Susan T. Fiske, and Chris Malone. 2012. Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, 2, 166--176.
    [35]
    Bret Kinsella. 2020. Introducing Voicebot Research - The Most Comprehensive Data on Voice Assistants and AI. Retrieved June 3, 2020 from https://voicebot.ai/2020/04/30/introducing-voicebot-research-the-most-comprehensive-data-on-voice-assistants-and-ai/
    [36]
    Will Knight. 2012. Social intelligence: Siri May Not be the Smartest AI in the World, But it?s the Most Socially Adept.Technology Review 115, 80--82.
    [37]
    Benjamin Knott and Phil Kortum. 2006. Personification of Voice User Interfaces: Impacts on User Performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 50, October 2006, 599--603.
    [38]
    Philipp Kulms and Stefan Kopp. 2018. A Social Cognition Perspective on Human--Computer Trust: The Effect of Perceived Warmth and Competence on Trust in Decision-Making With Computers. Frontiers in Digital Humanities 5, 14.
    [39]
    SeoYoung Lee and Junho Choi. 2017. Enhancing user experience with conversational agent for movie recommendation: Effects of self-disclosure and reciprocity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 103, 95--105. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.005
    [40]
    Yuelin Li and Nicholas J. Belkin. 2008. A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Information Processing & Management 44, 6, 1822--1837.
    [41]
    Fuan Li, Nan Zhou, Rajiv Kashyap, and Zhilin Yang. 2008. Brand trust as a second-order factor An alternative measurement model. International Journal of Market Research 50, 817--839.
    [42]
    Jingjing Liu, Chang Liu, and Nicholas J. Belkin. 2020. Personalization in text information retrieval: A survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71, 3, 349--369.
    [43]
    Irene Lopatovska. 2020. Personality Dimensions of Intelligent Personal Assistants. In Proceedings of SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval 2020 (CHIIR'20). March 14-18, 2020, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3343413.3377993
    [44]
    Gustavo López, Luis Quesada, and Luis Guerrero. 2017. Alexa vs. Siri vs. Cortana vs. Google Assistant: A Comparison of Speech-based Natural User Interfaces. Advances in Human Factors and Systems Interaction. AHFE 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 592, 241--250.
    [45]
    Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa. 2003. Personality in Adulthood: A Five-factor Theory Perspective. Guilford Press, New York, NY.
    [46]
    Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa. 1989. Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality 57, 1, 17--40.
    [47]
    Sarah Luisa Müller and Anja Richert. 2018. The Big-Five Personality Dimensions and Attitudes to-wards Robots: A Cross Sectional Study. In Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference (PETRA '18), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 405--408.
    [48]
    Isabel B. Myers, Linda K. Kirby, and Katharine D. Myers. 1998. Introduction to Type: A Guide to Understanding Your Results on the MBTI Instrument (6th ed). CPP, In., Mountain View, CA.
    [49]
    Raquel Oliveira, Patricia Arriaga, Filipa Correia, and Ana Paiva. 2019. The Stereotype Content Model Applied to Human-Robot Interactions in Groups. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, Daegu, Korea (South), 123--132.
    [50]
    Thomas F. Oltmanns and Eric Turkheimer. 2006. Perceptions of Self and Others Regarding Pathological Personality Traits. In Personality and psychopathology, R. F. Krueger & J. L. Tackett, Eds. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, 71--111.
    [51]
    Caitlin M. Porter and James R. Rigby. 2019. Relationship context and personality shape people's preferences for network relationship partners. Personal Relationships 26, 2, 310--330.
    [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 (CHI EA '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2853--2859.
    [53]
    Beatrice Rammstedt and Oliver P. John. 2007. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality 41, 1, 203--212.
    [54]
    Ian Ruthven and Diane Kelly. 2011. Interactive Information Seeking, Behaviour and Retrieval. Facet Publishing.
    [55]
    Miamaria Saastamoinen and Kalervo Järvelin. 2017. Search task features in work tasks of varying types and complexity. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology 68, 5, 1111--1123.
    [56]
    Clemens Stachl, Quay Au, Ramona Schoedel, Samuel D. Gosling, Gabriella M. Harari, Daniel Buschek, Sarah Theres Völkel, Tobias Schuwerk, Michelle Oldemeier, Theresa Ullmann, Heinrich Hussmann, Bernd Bischl, and Markus Bühner. 2020. Predicting personality from patterns of behavior collected with smartphones. PNAS 117, 30, 17680--17687.
    [57]
    Robert Stebbins. 2009. Serious Leisure and Work. Sociology Compass 3, 5, 764--774.
    [58]
    Randy Stein and Alexander B. Swan. 2019. Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 13, 2, e12434.
    [59]
    Sarah Theres Völkel, Ramona Schödel, Daniel Buschek, Clemens Stachl, Verena Winterhalter, Markus Bühner, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2020. Developing a Personality Model for Speech-based Conversational Agents Using the Psycholexical Approach. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--14.
    [60]
    Ilaria Torre, Jeremy Goslin, and Laurence White. 2019. If your device could smile: People trust happy-sounding artificial agents more. Computers in Human Behavior 105, 106215.
    [61]
    Peter Wright. 1974. The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 59, 5 (1974), 555--561.
    [62]
    Dan Wu, Shaobo Liang, Jing Dong, and Jin Qiu. 2018. Impact of Task Types on Collaborative Information Seeking Behavior. Libri 68, 3, 231--245.
    [63]
    Mao Xuetao, François Bouchet, and Jean-Paul Sansonnet. 2009. Impact of agent's answers variability on its believability and human-likeness and consequent chatbot improvements. In Proceedings of the Symposium Killer Robots vs. Friendly Fridges?The Social Understanding of Artificial Intelligence (AISB 2009), 31--36.
    [64]
    Michelle X. Zhou, Gloria Mark, Jingyi Li, and Huahai Yang. 2019. Trusting Virtual Agents: The Effect of Personality. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 9, 2--3, Article 10, 36 pages.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)The Personality Dimensions GPT-3 Expresses During Human-Chatbot InteractionsProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36596268:2(1-36)Online publication date: 15-May-2024
    • (2024)Chatbots With Attitude: Enhancing Chatbot Interactions Through Dynamic Personality InfusionProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665543(1-16)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
    • (2024)What I Don’t Like about You?: A Systematic Review of Impeding Aspects for the Usage of Conversational AgentsInteracting with Computers10.1093/iwc/iwae018Online publication date: 31-May-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHIIR '21: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval
    March 2021
    384 pages
    ISBN:9781450380553
    DOI:10.1145/3406522
    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

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 14 March 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. amazon alexa
    2. anthropomorphizing
    3. branding
    4. conversational agent
    5. conversational interfaces
    6. intelligent personal assistant
    7. personality
    8. personification
    9. stereotype content model
    10. stressful interactions

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CHIIR '21
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 55 of 163 submissions, 34%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)77
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
    Reflects downloads up to 26 Jul 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)The Personality Dimensions GPT-3 Expresses During Human-Chatbot InteractionsProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36596268:2(1-36)Online publication date: 15-May-2024
    • (2024)Chatbots With Attitude: Enhancing Chatbot Interactions Through Dynamic Personality InfusionProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665543(1-16)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
    • (2024)What I Don’t Like about You?: A Systematic Review of Impeding Aspects for the Usage of Conversational AgentsInteracting with Computers10.1093/iwc/iwae018Online publication date: 31-May-2024
    • (2023)Metaphors in Voice User Interfaces: A Slippery FishACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/360932630:6(1-37)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Designing Supportive Conversational Agents With and For TeensProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3576840.3578283(328-332)Online publication date: 19-Mar-2023
    • (2023)What affects the usage of artificial conversational agents? An agent personality and love theory perspectiveComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2023.107788145:COnline publication date: 24-May-2023
    • (2022)Application and extension of the UTAUT2 model for determining behavioral intention factors in use of the artificial intelligence virtual assistantsFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2022.99393513Online publication date: 18-Oct-2022
    • (2022)Does Chatbot Language Formality Affect Users’ Self-Disclosure?Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3543829.3543831(1-13)Online publication date: 26-Jul-2022
    • (2022)Reflection on future directions: a systematic review of reported limitations and solutions in interactive information retrieval user studiesAslib Journal of Information Management10.1108/AJIM-05-2022-0253Online publication date: 19-Dec-2022
    • (2022)Contextual Perceptions of Feminine-, Masculine- and Gender-Ambiguous-Sounding Conversational AgentsInformation for a Better World: Shaping the Global Future10.1007/978-3-030-96957-8_38(459-480)Online publication date: 23-Feb-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media