Fan He
Catherine M. Burns
ABSTRACT
This study extends efforts to understand the interplay of contextual factors in the personalization of in-vehicle voice interfaces. In particular, an online study found that neither aggressiveness nor gender of voice assistants (VAs) would influence users’ attitudes like trust, perceived usefulness and overall positive emotions, towards in-vehicle VAs. Our results contradict the similarity-attraction effect as the VAs’ perceived aggressiveness, and drivers’ preferences for aggressive driving styles did not correlate. In addition, the results showed that prior experiences might affect users’ reliance and trust in VAs. This study also discovered relationships between users’ attitudes to in-vehicle VAs and their age and driving experiences.
- Efthimios Alepis and Constantinos Patsakis. 2017. Monkey says, monkey does: security and privacy on voice assistants. IEEE Access 5(2017), 17841–17851.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Amna Asif and Susanne Boll. 2010. Where to turn my car? Comparison of a tactile display and a conventional car navigation system under high load condition. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM New York, NY, USA, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 64–71.Google Scholar
- Douglas J Beirness. 1993. Do we really drive as we live? The role of personality factors in road crashes.Alcohol, Drugs & Driving 9, 3-4 (1993), 129–143.Google Scholar
- Timothy W Bickmore and Rosalind W Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 12, 2(2005), 293–327.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Braun, Anja Mainz, Ronee Chadowitz, Bastian Pfleging, and Florian Alt. 2019. At your service: Designing voice assistant personalities to improve automotive user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–11.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter C. Burns and Terry C. Lansdown. 2000. E-distraction: the challenges for safe and usable internet services in vehicles.Google Scholar
- Nicholas Carlini, Pratyush Mishra, Tavish Vaidya, Yuankai Zhang, Micah Sherr, Clay Shields, David Wagner, and Wenchao Zhou. 2016. Hidden voice commands. In 25th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 16). IEEE, Austin, TX, 513–530.Google Scholar
- Ke Chen and Alan HS Chan. 2011. A review of technology acceptance by older adults.Gerontechnology 10, 1 (2011), 1–12.Google Scholar
- Jae Eun Chung, Namkee Park, Hua Wang, Janet Fulk, and Margaret McLaughlin. 2010. Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers in Human Behavior 26, 6 (2010), 1674–1684.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amy JC Cuddy, Susan T Fiske, and Peter Glick. 2007. The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes.Journal of personality and social psychology 92, 4(2007), 631.Google Scholar
- Sara J Czaja, Neil Charness, Arthur D Fisk, Christopher Hertzog, Sankaran N Nair, Wendy A Rogers, and Joseph Sharit. 2006. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE).Psychology and aging 21, 2 (2006), 333.Google Scholar
- Fred D Davis. 1985. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Fred D DaViS. 1989. Bagozzi. RP & Warshaw. PR (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science 35, 8 (1989), 982–1003.Google Scholar
- Morton Deutsch. 1958. Trust and suspicion. Journal of conflict resolution 2, 4 (1958), 265–279.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wenrui Diao, Xiangyu Liu, Zhe Zhou, and Kehuan Zhang. 2014. Your voice assistant is mine: How to abuse speakers to steal information and control your phone. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Security and Privacy in Smartphones & Mobile Devices. ACM New York, NY, USA, Scottsdale Arizona USA, 63–74.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jiayuan Dong, Emily Lawson, Jack Olsen, and Myounghoon Jeon. 2020. Female voice agents in fully autonomous vehicles are not only more likeable and comfortable, but also more competent. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 64. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Sage Publications, Incorporated, 1033–1037.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laura Eboli, Gabriella Mazzulla, and Giuseppe Pungillo. 2017. How drivers’ characteristics can affect driving style. Transportation research procedia 27 (2017), 945–952.Google Scholar
- Haiyan Fan and Marshall Scott Poole. 2006. What is personalization? Perspectives on the design and implementation of personalization in information systems. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 16, 3-4(2006), 179–202.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jasper Feine, Ulrich Gnewuch, Stefan Morana, and Alexander Maedche. 2019. A taxonomy of social cues for conversational agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 132 (2019), 138–161.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jean E Fox and Deborah A Boehm-Davis. 1998. Effects of age and congestion information accuracy of advanced traveler information systems on user trust and compliance. Transportation Research Record 1621, 1 (1998), 43–49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zixuan Guo and Tomoo Inoue. 2019. Using a conversational agent to facilitate non-native speaker’s active participation in conversation. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julie Hatfield and Timothy Chamberlain. 2008. The effect of audio materials from a rear-seat audiovisual entertainment system or from radio on simulated driving. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 11, 1(2008), 52–60.Google Scholar
- William J Horrey and Christopher D Wickens. 2004. Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. Human factors 46, 4 (2004), 611–624.Google Scholar
- Yuexiang Huang, Chun-Hsien Chen, and Li Pheng Khoo. 2012. Products classification in emotional design using a basic-emotion based semantic differential method. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42, 6(2012), 569–580.Google ScholarCross Ref
- UK Violence Intervention and Prevention Center. 2014. The four basic styles of communication. University of Kentucky. https://www.uky.edu/hr/sites/www.uky.edu.hr/files/wellness/images/Conf14_FourCommStyles.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Yeongjin Jang, Chengyu Song, Simon P Chung, Tielei Wang, and Wenke Lee. 2014. A11y attacks: Exploiting accessibility in operating systems. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM New York, NY, USA, Scottsdale Arizona USA, 103–115.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Myounghoon Jeon, Thomas M Gable, Benjamin K Davison, Michael A Nees, Jeff Wilson, and Bruce N Walker. 2015. Menu navigation with in-vehicle technologies: Auditory menu cues improve dual task performance, preference, and workload. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 31, 1(2015), 1–16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- SeungJun Kim and Anind K Dey. 2009. Simulated augmented reality windshield display as a cognitive mapping aid for elder driver navigation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, Boston MA USA, 133–142.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bret Kinsella and Ava Mutchler. 2019. In-Car Voice Assistant Consumer Adoption Report.Google Scholar
- Barbara Krahé and Ilka Fenske. 2002. Predicting aggressive driving behavior: The role of macho personality, age, and power of car. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression 28, 1 (2002), 21–29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anastasia A Kuzminykh and Sergey N Enikolopov. 2015. Perception of Aggressiveness of Communicative Information Depending on a Speaker’s Gender. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 5, 1(2015), 68.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Timo Lajunen and Dianne Parker. 2001. Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 33, 2 (2001), 243–255.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eun Ju Lee, Clifford Nass, and Scott Brave. 2000. Can computer-generated speech have gender? An experimental test of gender stereotype. In CHI’00 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, The Hague The Netherlands, 289–290.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors 46, 1 (2004), 50–80.Google Scholar
- Sanguk Lee, Rabindra Ratan, and Taiwoo Park. 2019. The voice makes the car: Enhancing autonomous vehicle perceptions and adoption intention through voice agent gender and style. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 3, 1 (2019), 20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Seul Chan Lee, Harsh Sanghavi, Sangjin Ko, and Myounghoon Jeon. 2019. Autonomous driving with an agent: Speech style and embodiment. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct Proceedings. ACM New York, NY, USA, Utrecht Netherlands, 209–214.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nora Ni Loideain and Rachel Adams. 2020. From Alexa to Siri and the GDPR: the gendering of virtual personal assistants and the role of data protection impact assessments. Computer Law & Security Review 36 (2020), 105366.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert R McCrae and Paul T Costa. 1987. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.Journal of personality and social psychology 52, 1(1987), 81.Google Scholar
- Robert J Moore, Raphael Arar, Guang-Jie Ren, and Margaret H Szymanski. 2017. Conversational UX design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, Denver Colorado USA, 492–497.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John W Mullennix, Steven E Stern, Stephen J Wilson, and Corrie-lynn Dyson. 2003. Social perception of male and female computer synthesized speech. Computers in Human Behavior 19, 4 (2003), 407–424.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clifford Nass, Ing-Marie Jonsson, Helen Harris, Ben Reaves, Jack Endo, Scott Brave, and Leila Takayama. 2005. Improving automotive safety by pairing driver emotion and car voice emotion. In CHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, Portland OR USA, 1973–1976.Google Scholar
- Clifford Nass and Kwan Min Lee. 2001. Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction.Journal of experimental psychology: applied 7, 3 (2001), 171.Google Scholar
- Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues 56, 1 (2000), 81–103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clifford Nass, Youngme Moon, Brian J Fogg, Byron Reeves, and D Christopher Dryer. 1995. Can computer personalities be human personalities?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43, 2 (1995), 223–239.Google Scholar
- Michael A Nees and Bruce N Walker. 2011. Auditory displays for in-vehicle technologies. Reviews of human factors and ergonomics 7, 1 (2011), 58–99.Google Scholar
- Randy J Pagulayan, Kevin Keeker, Dennis Wixon, Ramon L Romero, and Thomas Fuller. 2002. User-centered design in games. In The human-computer interaction handbook. CRC Press, 915–938.Google Scholar
- Eun Kyung Park, Kwan Min Lee, and Dong Hee Shin. 2015. Social responses to conversational TV VUI: apology and voice. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI) 11, 1(2015), 17–32.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cathy Pearl. 2016. Designing voice user interfaces: principles of conversational experiences. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
- Chris Phielix, Frans J Prins, Paul A Kirschner, Gijsbert Erkens, and Jos Jaspers. 2011. Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 3 (2011), 1087–1102.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Victor Riley. 2018. Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. In Automation and human performance: Theory and applications. CRC Press, 19–35.Google Scholar
- Manuel Rivera, Amy Gregory, and Liza Cobos. 2015. Mobile application for the timeshare industry: The influence of technology experience, usefulness, and attitude on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 6, 3 (2015), 242–257.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jaka Sodnik, Saso Tomazic, Christina Dicke, and Mark Billinghurst. 2008. Spatial auditory interface for an embedded communication device in a car. In First International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interaction. IEEE, Sainte Luce, Martinique, France, 69–76.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Timo Strohmann, Laura Höper, and Susanne Robra-Bissantz. 2019. Design guidelines for creating a convincing user experience with virtual in-vehicle assistants. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 11, 2(2019), 54–78.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Suzanne Tolmeijer, Naim Zierau, Andreas Janson, Jalil Sebastian Wahdatehagh, Jan Marco Marco Leimeister, and Abraham Bernstein. 2021. Female by Default?–Exploring the Effect of Voice Assistant Gender and Pitch on Trait and Trust Attribution. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM New York, NY, USA, Yokohama Japan, 1–7.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tavish Vaidya, Yuankai Zhang, Micah Sherr, and Clay Shields. 2015. Cocaine noodles: exploiting the gap between human and machine speech recognition. In 9th {USENIX} Workshop on Offensive Technologies ({WOOT} 15). USENIX Association, Washington, D.C., 16.Google Scholar
- Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G Morris, Gordon B Davis, and Fred D Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly 27, 3 (2003), 425–478.Google Scholar
- James Vlahos. 2019. Talk to Me: How Voice Computing Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Think. Eamon Dolan Books.Google Scholar
- 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. ACM New York, NY, USA, Honolulu HI USA, 1–14.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Manhua Wang, Seul Chan Lee, Harsh Kamalesh Sanghavi, Megan Eskew, Bo Zhou, and Myounghoon Jeon. 2021. In-Vehicle Intelligent Agents in Fully Autonomous Driving: The Effects of Speech Style and Embodiment Together and Separately. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM New York, NY, USA, Leeds United Kingdom, 247–254.Google Scholar
- Yiqi Zhang, Rebecca Houston, and Changxu Wu. 2016. Psychometric examination and validation of the aggressive driving scale (ADS). Aggressive behavior 42, 4 (2016), 313–323.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A Battle of Voices: A Study of the Relationship between Driving Experience, Driving Style, and In-Vehicle Voice Assistant Character
Recommendations
The Exploration of Autonomous Vehicle Driving Styles: Preferred Longitudinal, Lateral, and Vertical Accelerations
Automotive'UI 16: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsThis paper describes a new approach in exploring preferred driving styles for autonomous vehicles through simulation of autonomous driving in real road conditions. A Wizard experiment with an equipped car was conducted to investigate the preferences of ...
Numerical Analysis of Tractor Accidents using Driving Simulator for Autonomous Driving Tractor
ICMRE'19: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Mechatronics and Robotics EngineeringAutonomous driving of automobiles is a hot research topic in recent years. The autonomous driving tractor also has been studied in the agricultural field as well as an autonomous driving automobile. On the other hand, tractor accidents frequently occur ...
Driving Maneuvers Analysis Using Naturalistic Highway Driving Data
ITSC '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation SystemsAccounting about 70% of vehicle miles on roadways, highway driving is a critical issue in traffic safety deployment. Of the various maneuvers that comprise the highly complex driving task, each one requires understanding on the connections between ...
Comments