Amama Mahmood
Chien-Ming Huang
ABSTRACT
Interactive AI systems such as voice assistants are bound to make errors because of imperfect sensing and reasoning. Prior human-AI interaction research has illustrated the importance of various strategies for error mitigation in repairing the perception of an AI following a breakdown in service. These strategies include explanations, monetary rewards, and apologies. This paper extends prior work on error mitigation by exploring how different methods of apology conveyance may affect people’s perceptions of AI agents; we report an online study (N=37) that examines how varying the sincerity of an apology and the assignment of blame (on either the agent itself or others) affects participants’ perceptions and experience with erroneous AI agents. We found that agents that openly accepted the blame and apologized sincerely for mistakes were thought to be more intelligent, likeable, and effective in recovering from errors than agents that shifted the blame to others.
Supplemental Material
- Gavin Abercrombie, Amanda Cercas Curry, Mugdha Pandya, and Verena Rieser. 2021. Alexa, Google, Siri: What are Your Pronouns? Gender and Anthropomorphism in the Design and Perception of Conversational Assistants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02578(2021).Google Scholar
- Karin Aijmer. 2019. ‘Ooh whoops I’m sorry! Teenagers’ use of English apology expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 142 (2019), 258–269.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulić, 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.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dennis Benner, Edona Elshan, Sofia Schöbel, and Andreas Janson. 2021. What do you mean? A Review on Recovery Strategies to Overcome Conversational Breakdowns of Conversational Agents. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).Google Scholar
- Alison Wood Brooks, Hengchen Dai, and Maurice E Schweitzer. 2014. I’m sorry about the rain! Superfluous apologies demonstrate empathic concern and increase trust. Social Psychological and Personality Science 5, 4 (2014), 467–474.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel J Brooks, Momotaz Begum, and Holly A Yanco. 2016. Analysis of reactions towards failures and recovery strategies for autonomous robots. In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 487–492.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Cameron, Stevienna de Saille, Emily C Collins, Jonathan M Aitken, Hugo Cheung, Adriel Chua, Ee Jing Loh, and James Law. 2021. The effect of social-cognitive recovery strategies on likability, capability and trust in social robots. Computers in Human Behavior 114 (2021), 106561.Google ScholarDigital Library
- James L Heskett Christopher W Hart and Jr W Earl Sasser. 1990. The profitable art of service recovery. (1990), 148–156.Google Scholar
- Jacob Cohen. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. England: Routledge (1988).Google Scholar
- Filipa Correia, Carla Guerra, Samuel Mascarenhas, Francisco S Melo, and Ana Paiva. 2018. Exploring the impact of fault justification in human-robot trust. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. 507–513.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ryan Fehr and Michele J Gelfand. 2010. When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 113, 1(2010), 37–50.Google Scholar
- Joel E Fischer, Stuart Reeves, Martin Porcheron, and Rein Ove Sikveland. 2019. Progressivity for voice interface design. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces. 1–8.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Fought. 1972. Erving Goffman, Relations in public: microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Pp. xvii 396.Language in Society 1, 2 (1972), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000543Google ScholarCross Ref
- Caleb Furlough, Thomas Stokes, and Douglas J Gillan. 2021. Attributing blame to robots: I. The influence of robot autonomy. Human factors 63, 4 (2021), 592–602.Google Scholar
- Xiang Ge, Dan Li, Daisong Guan, Shihui Xu, Yanyan Sun, and Moli Zhou. 2019. Do smart speakers respond to their errors properly? A study on human-computer dialogue strategy. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 440–455.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Petra Gieselmann. 2006. Comparing error-handling strategies in human-human and human-robot dialogues. In Proc. 8th Conf. Nat. Language Process.(KONVENS). Konstanz, Germany. 24–31.Google Scholar
- Trudy Govier and Wilhelm Verwoerd. 2002. The promise and pitfalls of apology. Journal of social philosophy 33, 1 (2002), 67–82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Griol and José Manuel Molina. 2016. A framework for improving error detection and correction in spoken dialog systems. Soft Computing 20, 11 (2016), 4229–4241.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Victoria Groom, Jimmy Chen, Theresa Johnson, F Arda Kara, and Clifford Nass. 2010. Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 211–217.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yaou Hu, Hyounae Min, and Na Su. 2021. How Sincere is an Apology? Recovery Satisfaction in A Robot Service Failure Context. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research(2021), 10963480211011533.Google Scholar
- Gilhwan Hwang, Jeewon Lee, Cindy Yoonjung Oh, and Joonhwan Lee. 2019. It sounds like a woman: Exploring gender stereotypes in South Korean voice assistants. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amazon Inc.[n.d.]. Alexa Design Guide. https://developer.amazon.com/en-US/docs/alexa/alexa-design/get-started.html. Accessed: 2021-12-01.Google Scholar
- Google Inc.[n.d.]. Conversation Design. https://developers.google.com/assistant/conversation-design/welcome. Accessed: 2021-12-01.Google Scholar
- Jiepu Jiang, Wei Jeng, and Daqing He. 2013. How do users respond to voice input errors? Lexical and phonetic query reformulation in voice search. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 143–152.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ing-Marie Jonsson, Clifford Nass, Jack Endo, Ben Reaves, Helen Harris, Janice Le Ta, Nicholas Chan, and Sean Knapp. 2004. Don’t blame me I am only the Driver: Impact of Blame Attribution on Attitudes and Attention to Driving Task. In CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 1219–1222.Google Scholar
- Poornima Kaniarasu and Aaron M Steinfeld. 2014. Effects of blame on trust in human robot interaction. In The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, 850–855.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter H Kim, Kurt T Dirks, Cecily D Cooper, and Donald L Ferrin. 2006. When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 99, 1 (2006), 49–65.Google Scholar
- Taenyun Kim and Hayeon Song. 2021. How should intelligent agents apologize to restore trust? Interaction effects between anthropomorphism and apology attribution on trust repair. Telematics and Informatics 61 (2021), 101595.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dimosthenis Kontogiorgos, Sanne van Waveren, Olle Wallberg, Andre Pereira, Iolanda Leite, and Joakim Gustafson. 2020. Embodiment effects in interactions with failing robots. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anastasia Kuzminykh, Jenny Sun, Nivetha Govindaraju, Jeff Avery, and Edward Lank. 2020. Genie in the bottle: Anthropomorphized perceptions of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Min Kyung Lee, Sara Kiesler, Jodi Forlizzi, Siddhartha Srinivasa, and Paul Rybski. 2010. Gracefully mitigating breakdowns in robotic services. In 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 203–210.Google Scholar
- Xuying Leo and Young Eun Huh. 2020. Who gets the blame for service failures? Attribution of responsibility toward robot versus human service providers and service firms. Computers in Human Behavior 113 (2020), 106520.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gina-Anne Levow. 1998. Characterizing and recognizing spoken corrections in human-computer dialogue. In 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 1. 736–742.Google Scholar
- Roderick JA Little. 1988. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American statistical Association 83, 404(1988), 1198–1202.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James G Maxham III and Richard G Netemeyer. 2003. Firms reap what they sow: the effects of shared values and perceived organizational justice on customers’ evaluations of complaint handling. Journal of Marketing 67, 1 (2003), 46–62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Steven J Migacz, Suiwen Zou, and James F Petrick. 2018. The “terminal” effects of service failure on airlines: Examining service recovery with justice theory. Journal of Travel Research 57, 1 (2018), 83–98.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicole Mirnig, Gerald Stollnberger, Markus Miksch, Susanne Stadler, Manuel Giuliani, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2017. To err is robot: How humans assess and act toward an erroneous social robot. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 4 (2017), 21.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wade J Mitchell, Chin-Chang Ho, Himalaya Patel, and Karl F MacDorman. 2011. Does social desirability bias favor humans? Explicit–implicit evaluations of synthesized speech support a new HCI model of impression management. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 1 (2011), 402–412.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Flora Moon. [n.d.]. Sound of Text. https://soundoftext.com/. Accessed: 2021-08-01.Google Scholar
- Bob Moore and Raphael Arar. [n.d.]. Conversation design Guidelines. https://conversational-ux.mybluemix.net/design/conversational-ux/. Accessed: 2021-12-01.Google Scholar
- Chelsea Myers, Anushay Furqan, Jessica Nebolsky, Karina Caro, and Jichen Zhu. 2018. Patterns for how users overcome obstacles in voice user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cathy Pearl. 2016. Designing voice user interfaces: Principles of conversational experiences. ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”.Google Scholar
- Valentina Pitardi and Hannah R Marriott. 2021. Alexa, she’s not human but… Unveiling the drivers of consumers’ trust in voice-based artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing 38, 4 (2021), 626–642.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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. 1–12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin Porcheron, Joel E Fischer, and Sarah Sharples. 2017. ” Do Animals Have Accents?” Talking with Agents in Multi-Party Conversation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 207–219.Google Scholar
- Marianne Promberger and Jonathan Baron. 2006. Do patients trust computers?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19, 5 (2006), 455–468.Google Scholar
- Holger Roschk and Susanne Kaiser. 2013. The nature of an apology: An experimental study on how to apologize after a service failure. Marketing Letters 24, 3 (2013), 293–309.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Donald B Rubin. 2004. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Vol. 81. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Jagdish N Sheth and CH Kellstadt. 1994. A normative model of retaining customer satisfaction. Gamma News JournalJuly-August (1994), 4–7.Google Scholar
- Richard Spreng, Gilbert Harrell, and Robert Mackoy. 1995. Service Recovery: Impact on Satisfaction and Intentions. Journal of Services Marketing 9 (03 1995), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049510079853Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephen S Tax, Stephen W Brown, and Murali Chandrashekaran. 1998. Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. Journal of marketing 62, 2 (1998), 60–76.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joost R van Ginkel, Marielle Linting, Ralph CA Rippe, and Anja van der Voort. 2020. Rebutting existing misconceptions about multiple imputation as a method for handling missing data. Journal of personality assessment 102, 3 (2020), 297–308.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Owning Mistakes Sincerely: Strategies for Mitigating AI Errors
Recommendations
Cue effectiveness in mitigating postcompletion errors in a routine procedural task
Postcompletion errors, which are omissions of actions required after the completion of a task's main goal, occur in a variety of everyday procedural tasks. Previous research has demonstrated the difficulty of reducing their frequency by means other than ...
Am I Wrong, or Is the Autograder Wrong? Effects of AI Grading Mistakes on Learning
ICER '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1Errors in AI grading and feedback often have an intractable set of causes and are, by their nature, difficult to completely avoid. Since inaccurate feedback potentially harms learning, there is a need for designs and workflows that mitigate these ...
Human-AI Interaction and AI Avatars
HCI International 2023 – Late Breaking PapersAbstractHuman-Computer Interaction has been evolving rapidly with the advancement of artificial intelligence and metaverse. Human-AI Interaction is a new area in Human-Computer Interaction. In this paper, we look at AI avatars, which are human-like ...
Comments