skip to main content
10.1145/3176349.3176380acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

SearchBots: User Engagement with ChatBots during Collaborative Search

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Popular messaging platforms such as Slack have given rise to hundreds of chatbots that users can engage with individually or as a group. We present a Wizard of Oz study on the use of searchbots (i.e., chatbots that perform specific types of searches) during collaborative information-seeking tasks. Specifically, we study searchbots that intervene dynamically and compare between two intervention types: (1) the searchbot presents questions to users to gather the information it needs to produce results, and (2) the searchbot monitors the conversation among the collaborators, infers the necessary information, and then displays search results with no additional input from the users. We investigate three research questions: (RQ1) What is the effect of a searchbot (and its intervention type) on participants» collaborative experience' (RQ2) What is the effect of a searchbot»s intervention type on participants» perceptions about the searchbot and level of engagement with the searchbot' and (RQ3) What are participants» impressions of a dynamic searchbot? Our results suggest that dynamic searchbots can enhance users» collaborative experience and that the intervention type does not greatly affect users» perceptions and level of engagement. Participants» impressions of the searchbot suggest unique opportunities and challenges for future work.

References

  1. Piotr D. Adamczyk and Brian P. Bailey . 2004. If Not Now, when?: The Effects of Interruption at Different Moments Within Task Execution CHI. ACM, 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Brian P. Bailey and Joseph A. Konstan . 2006. On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior Vol. 22, 4 (2006), 685--708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Robert Capra, Jaime Arguello, Anita Crescenzi, and Emily Vardell . 2015. Differences in the Use of Search Assistance for Tasks of Varying Complexity SIGIR. ACM, 23--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Robert Capra, Annie Chen, Katie Hawthorne, Jaime Arguello, Lee Shaw, and Gary Marchionini . 2012. Design and Evaluation of a System to Support Collaborative Search ASIST. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Robert Capra, Gary Marchionini, Javier Velasco-Martin, and Katrina Muller . 2010. Tools-at-hand and Learning in Multi-session, Collaborative Search CHI. ACM, 951--960. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Robert Capra, Javier Velasco-Martin, and Beth Sams . 2011. Collaborative Information Seeking by the Numbers. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Collaborative Information Retrieval. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Mary Czerwinski, Ed Cutrell, and Eric Horvitz . 2000. Instant Messaging: Effects of Relevance and Timing HCI, Vol. Vol. 2. 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Garett Dworman and Stephanie Rosenbaum . 2004. Helping Users to Use Help: Improving Interaction with Help Systems CHI. ACM, 1717--1718. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Miles Efron and Megan Winget . 2010. Questions are content: A taxonomy of questions in a microblogging environment. ASIST, Vol. 47, 1 (2010), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Lia Emanuel, Joel Fischer, Wendy Ju, and Saiph Savage . 2016. Innovations in Autonomous Systems: Challenges and Opportunities for Human-agent Collaboration CSCW. ACM, 193--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Brynn M. Evans and Ed H. Chi . 2008. Towards a Model of Understanding Social Search. In CSCW. ACM, 485--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gene Golovchinsky, Jeremy Pickens, and Abdigani Diriye . 2011. Designing for Collaboration in Information Seeking HCIR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ralitza Gueorguieva and John H Krystal . 2004. Move over anova: Progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the archives of general psychiatry. Archives of general psychiatry (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Marti A. Hearst . 2014. What's Missing from Collaborative Search? Computer, Vol. 47, 3 (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B. Hecht, J. Teevan, M.R. Morris, and D. Liebling . 2012. SearchBuddies: Bringing Search Engines into the Conversation ICWSM. AAAI, 138--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey . 2006. Leveraging Characteristics of Task Structure to Predict the Cost of Interruption CHI. ACM, 741--750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey . 2008. Effects of Intelligent Notification Management on Users and Their Tasks CHI. ACM, 93--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Bernard J. Jansen and Michael D. McNeese . 2005. Evaluating the effectiveness of and patterns of interactions with automated searching assistance. JASIST, Vol. 56, 14 (2005), 1480--1503. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Malte F. Jung, Selma vSabanoviç, Friederike Eyssel, and Marlena Fraune . 2017. Robots in Groups and Teams. In CSCW. ACM, 401--407. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ryan Kelly and Stephen J. Payne . 2014. Collaborative Web Search in Context: A Study of Tool Use in Everyday Tasks CSCW. ACM, 807--819. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch . 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, Vol. 33, 1 (1977), 159--174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Simon Y W Li, Farah Magrabi, and Enrico Coiera . 2012. A systematic review of the psychological literature on interruption and its patient safety implications. JAMIA (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Daniel McFarlane . 1999. Coordinating the interruptions of people in human-computer interaction HCI-INTERACT. IOS Press, 295--303.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Meredith Ringel Morris . 2008. A Survey of Collaborative Web Search Practices. In CHI. ACM, 1657--1660. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Meredith Ringel Morris . 2013. Collaborative Search Revisited. In CSCW. ACM, 1181--1192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Meredith Ringel Morris and Eric Horvitz . 2007. SearchTogether: An Interface for Collaborative Web Search UIST. ACM, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Meredith Ringel Morris, Jaime Teevan, and Katrina Panovich . 2010. What Do People Ask Their Social Networks, and Why?: A Survey Study of Status Message Q&a Behavior. In CHI. ACM, 1739--1748. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Sharoda A. Paul and Meredith Ringel Morris . 2009. CoSense: Enhancing Sensemaking for Collaborative Web Search CHI. ACM, 2007--2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Nia Peters, Griffin Romigh, George Bradley, and Bhiksha Raj . 2016. When to Interrupt: A Comparative Analysis of Interruption Timings Within Collaborative Communication Tasks. In Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Factors and System Interactions. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeremy Pickens, Gene Golovchinsky, Chirag Shah, Pernilla Qvarfordt, and Maribeth Back . 2008. Algorithmic Mediation for Collaborative Exploratory Search SIGIR. ACM, 315--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Martin Porcheron, Joel E. Fischer, Moira McGregor, Barry Brown, Ewa Luger, Heloisa Candello, and Kenton O'Hara . 2017. Talking with Conversational Agents in Collaborative Action CSCW. ACM, 431--436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Chirag Shah . 2010. Coagmento-a collaborative information seeking, synthesis and sense-making framework CSCW. ACM, 6--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Chirag Shah . 2013. Effects of awareness on coordination in collaborative information seeking. JASIST, Vol. 64, 6 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Chirag Shah, Madhu Reddy, and Michael Twidale . 2010. Collaborative Information Seeking (CIS): Toward New Theories and Applications GROUP. ACM, 321--326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Chirag Shah and Jennifer Sonne . 2015. Seeking Information in Online Environments: Where, Who, and Why? iConference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Iris Xie and Colleen Cool . 2009. Understanding help seeking within the context of searching digital libraries. JASIST Vol. 60 (2009), 477--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Zhen Yue, Shuguang Han, and Daqing He . 2012. An investigation of search processes in collaborative exploratory web search ASIST. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Z. Yue, S. Han, D. He, and J. Jiang . 2014. Influences on Query Reformulation in Collaborative Web Search. Computer, Vol. 47, 3 (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. SearchBots: User Engagement with ChatBots during Collaborative Search

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

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

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CHIIR '18: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval
            March 2018
            402 pages
            ISBN:9781450349253
            DOI:10.1145/3176349

            Copyright © 2018 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 ACM 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]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 March 2018

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            CHIIR '18 Paper Acceptance Rate22of57submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate55of163submissions,34%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader