research-article

Open access

Does Chatbot Language Formality Affect Users’ Self-Disclosure?

Authors:

Samuel Rhys Cox,

Wei Tsang OoiAuthors Info & Claims

CUI '22: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

Article No.: 1, Pages 1 - 13

https://doi.org/10.1145/3543829.3543831

Published: 15 September 2022 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Chatbots are increasingly used to replace human interviewers and survey forms for soliciting information from users. This paper presents two studies that investigate how the formality of a chatbot’s conversational style can affect the likelihood of users engaging with and disclosing sensitive information to a chatbot. In our first study, we show that the domain and sensitivity of the information being requested impact users’ preferred conversational style. Specifically, when users were asked to disclose sensitive health information, they perceived a formal style as more competent and appropriate. In our second study, we investigate the health domain further by analysing the quality of user utterances as users talk to a chatbot about their dental flossing. We found that users who do not floss every day gave higher quality responses when talking to a formal chatbot. These findings can help designers choose a chatbot’s language formality for their given use case.

References

[1]

Martin Adam and Johannes Klumpe. 2019. Onboarding with a Chat–The Effects of Message Interactivity and Platform Self-Disclosure on User Disclosure Propensity. Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (May 2019). https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/68

[2]

Odette Aguirre-Zero, C Westerhold, R Goldsworthy, and Gerardo Maupome. 2016. Identification of barriers and beliefs influencing engagement by adult and teen Mexican-Americans in oral health behaviors. Community Dental Health 33, 1 (2016), 44.

[3]

Christopher Antoun, Mick P Couper, and Frederick G Conrad. 2017. Effects of mobile versus PC web on survey response quality: A crossover experiment in a probability web panel. Public Opinion Quarterly 81, S1 (2017), 280–306.

[4]

Anshul Bawa, Pranav Khadpe, Pratik Joshi, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. Do Multilingual Users Prefer Chat-bots that Code-mix? Let’s Nudge and Find Out!Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1(2020), 1–23.

[5]

Timothy Bickmore and Justine Cassell. 2000. “How about this weather?” Social Dialogue with Embodied Conversational Agents. In Proc. AAAI Fall Symposium on Socially Intelligent Agents.

[6]

Timothy Bickmore and Justine Cassell. 2001. Relational Agents: A Model and Implementation of Building User Trust. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 396–403.

Digital Library

[7]

Prakhar Biyani, Kostas Tsioutsiouliklis, and John Blackmer. 2016. “8 Amazing Secrets for Getting More Clicks”: Detecting Clickbaits in News Streams Using Article Informality. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 30.

[8]

Penelope Brown, Stephen C. Levinson, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. Google-Books-ID: OG7W8yA2XjcC.

[9]

Maria E Buglar, Katherine M White, and Natalie G Robinson. 2010. The role of self-efficacy in dental patients’ brushing and flossing: testing an extended Health Belief Model. Patient Education and Counseling 78, 2 (2010), 269–272.

[10]

Judee K Burgoon, Joseph A Bonito, Paul Benjamin Lowry, Sean L Humpherys, Gregory D Moody, James E Gaskin, and Justin Scott Giboney. 2016. Application of expectancy violations theory to communication with and judgments about embodied agents during a decision-making task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 91 (2016), 24–36.

Digital Library

[11]

Irene Celino and Gloria Re Calegari. 2020. Submitting surveys via a conversational interface: An evaluation of user acceptance and approach effectiveness. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 139 (July 2020), 102410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102410

[12]

Jesse Chandler, Cheskie Rosenzweig, Aaron J Moss, Jonathan Robinson, and Leib Litman. 2019. Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 51, 5 (2019), 2022–2038.

[13]

Ana Paula Chaves, Eck Doerry, Jesse Egbert, and Marco Gerosa. 2019. It’s How You Say It: Identifying Appropriate Register for Chatbot Language Design. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. 102–109.

Digital Library

[14]

Ana Paula Chaves and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2018. Single or multiple conversational agents? An interactional coherence comparison. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.

Digital Library

[15]

Ana Paula Chaves and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2021. How should my chatbot interact? A survey on social characteristics in human–chatbot interaction design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37, 8(2021), 729–758.

[16]

Domenic V Cicchetti. 1994. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.Psychological Assessment 6, 4 (1994), 284.

[17]

Patricia MA Corby, Aaron Biesbrock, Robert Bartizek, Andrea L Corby, Robin Monteverde, Rafael Ceschin, and Walter A Bretz. 2008. Treatment outcomes of dental flossing in twins: molecular analysis of the interproximal microflora. Journal of Periodontology 79, 8 (2008), 1426–1433.

[18]

Samuel Rhys Cox, Yunlong Wang, Ashraf Abdul, Christian von der Weth, and Brian Y. Lim. 2021. Directed Diversity: Leveraging Language Embedding Distances for Collective Creativity in Crowd Ideation. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445782

Digital Library

[19]

Amy JC 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. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2008), 61–149.

[20]

Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Moritz Sudhof, Dan Jurafsky, Jure Leskovec, and Christopher Potts. 2013. A Computational Approach to Politeness with Application to Social Factors. arXiv:1306.6078 [physics] (June 2013). http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6078 arXiv:1306.6078.

[21]

Tamara Dinev and Paul Hart. 2006. An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Information Systems Research 17, 1 (2006), 61–80.

Digital Library

[22]

Doris Dippold, Jenny Lynden, Rob Shrubsall, and Rich Ingram. 2020. A turn to language: How interactional sociolinguistics informs the redesign of prompt: response chatbot turns. Discourse, Context & Media 37 (2020), 100432.

[23]

Aryn M Dotterer and Elizabeth Day. 2019. Parental knowledge discrepancies: Examining the roles of warmth and self-disclosure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48, 3 (2019), 459–468.

[24]

Daniëlle Duijst. 2017. Can we improve the user experience of chatbots with personalisation. Master’s thesis. University of Amsterdam(2017).

[25]

Ela Elsholz, Jon Chamberlain, and Udo Kruschwitz. 2019. Exploring language style in chatbots to increase perceived product value and user engagement. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 301–305.

Digital Library

[26]

Richard M Emerson. 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology 2, 1 (1976), 335–362.

[27]

Susan Tufts Fiske and Shelley E Taylor. 1991. Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill. New York, NY (1991).

[28]

Asma Ghandeharioun, Daniel McDuff, Mary Czerwinski, and Kael Rowan. 2019. EMMA: An Emotion-Aware Wellbeing Chatbot. In 2019 8th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII). IEEE, 1–7.

[29]

David G Gillam and Huda Yusuf. 2019. Brief Motivational Interviewing in Dental Practice. Dentistry Journal 7, 2 (2019), 51.

[30]

Richard C Graves, Judith A Disney, and John W Stamm. 1989. Comparative effectiveness of flossing and brushing in reducing interproximal bleeding. Journal of Periodontology 60, 5 (1989), 243–247.

[31]

Herbert P Grice. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Speech Acts, Volume 3 of Syntax and Semantics. Brill, 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003

[32]

Jingya Guo, Jiajing Guo, Changyuan Yang, Yanjing Wu, and Lingyun Sun. 2021. Shing: A Conversational Agent to Alert Customers of Suspected Online-payment Fraud with Empathetical Communication Skills. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.

Digital Library

[33]

Jan Hartmann, Antonella De Angeli, and Alistair Sutcliffe. 2008. Framing the User Experience: Information Biases on Website Quality Judgement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 855–864.

Digital Library

[34]

Michael Hecker and TS Dillon. 2006. Ontological privacy support for the medical domain. eHPass (2006).

[35]

Francis Heylighen and Jean-Marc Dewaele. 1999. Formality of Language: definition, measurement and behavioral determinants. Interner Bericht, Center “Leo Apostel”, Vrije Universiteit Brüssel 4 (1999).

[36]

Jennifer Hill, W Randolph Ford, and Ingrid G Farreras. 2015. Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human–human online conversations and human–chatbot conversations. Computers in Human Behavior 49 (2015), 245–250.

Digital Library

[37]

Rens Hoegen, Deepali Aneja, Daniel McDuff, and Mary Czerwinski. 2019. An end-to-end conversational style matching agent. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. 111–118.

Digital Library

[38]

John J Horton, David G Rand, and Richard J Zeckhauser. 2011. The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics 14, 3 (2011), 399–425.

[39]

Nina Howe, Jasmin Aquan-Assee, William M Bukowski, Pascale M Lehoux, and Christina M Rinaldi. 2001. Siblings as confidants: Emotional understanding, relationship warmth, and sibling self-disclosure. Social Development 10, 4 (2001), 439–454.

[40]

Marie-Claire Jenkins, Richard Churchill, Stephen Cox, and Dan Smith. 2007. Analysis of user interaction with service oriented chatbot systems. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 76–83.

[41]

Soyoung Jung, Kwan Min Lee, and Frank Biocca. 2015. Voice control system and multiplatform use: Specialist vs. generalist?. In International Conference on Human Interface and the Management of Information. Springer, 607–616.

[42]

Pranav Khadpe, Ranjay Krishna, Li Fei-Fei, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Michael S Bernstein. 2020. Conceptual Metaphors Impact Perceptions of Human-AI Collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2(2020), 1–26.

Digital Library

[43]

Soomin Kim, Joonhwan Lee, and Gahgene Gweon. 2019. Comparing data from chatbot and web surveys: Effects of platform and conversational style on survey response quality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.

Digital Library

[44]

Kristen J Klaaren, Sara D Hodges, and Timothy D Wilson. 1994. The role of affective expectations in subjective experience and decision-making. Social Cognition 12, 2 (1994), 77–101.

[45]

Rafal Kocielnik and Gary Hsieh. 2017. Send Me a Different Message: Utilizing Cognitive Space to Create Engaging Message Triggers(CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, 2193–2207. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998324

Digital Library

[46]

Charles E Lance, Marcus M Butts, and Lawrence C Michels. 2006. The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?Organizational Research Methods 9, 2 (2006), 202–220.

[47]

Yi-Chieh Lee, Naomi Yamashita, and Yun Huang. 2020. Designing a Chatbot as a Mediator for Promoting Deep Self-Disclosure to a Real Mental Health Professional. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1(2020), 1–27.

Digital Library

[48]

Yuting Liao and Jiangen He. 2020. Racial mirroring effects on human-agent interaction in psychotherapeutic conversations. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 430–442.

Digital Library

[49]

Zhaojiang Lin, Peng Xu, Genta Indra Winata, Farhad Bin Siddique, Zihan Liu, Jamin Shin, and Pascale Fung. 2020. CAiRE: An End-to-End Empathetic Chatbot. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 34. 13622–13623. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i09.7098

[50]

Courtney Linder. 2020. The Effects of a Healthcare Chatbots’ Language and Persona on User Trust, Satisfaction, and Chatbot Effectiveness. Master’s thesis. Clemson University(2020).

[51]

Bingjie Liu and S Shyam Sundar. 2018. Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 21, 10(2018), 625–636.

[52]

Irene Lopatovska, Elena Korshakova, Diedre Brown, Yiqiao Li, Jie Min, Amber Pasiak, and Kaige Zheng. 2021. User perceptions of an intelligent personal assistant’s personality: the role of interaction context. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 15–25.

Digital Library

[53]

Stephen Louw, R Watson Todd, and P Jimarkon. 2011. Active listening in qualitative research interviews. In Proceedings of the International Conference: Research in Applied Linguistics, April.

[54]

Ereni Markos, George R Milne, and James W Peltier. 2017. Information sensitivity and willingness to provide continua: a comparative privacy study of the United States and Brazil. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 36, 1 (2017), 79–96.

[55]

Aigul Mavletova. 2013. Data quality in PC and mobile web surveys. Social Science Computer Review 31, 6 (2013), 725–743.

Digital Library

[56]

Youngme Moon. 2000. Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self‐Disclosure From Consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 26, 4 (2000), 323–339. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/209566

[57]

Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 72–78.

Digital Library

[58]

Scott Nowson, Jon Oberlander, and Alastair J. Gill. 2005. Weblogs, genres and individual differences. In In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 1666–1671.

[59]

Daniel M Oppenheimer, Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko. 2009. Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, 4 (2009), 867–872.

[60]

Rita Orji, Julita Vassileva, and Regan Mandryk. 2012. Towards an Effective Health Interventions Design: An Extension of the Health Belief Model. Online Journal of Public Health Informatics 4, 3 (2012).

[61]

Jahna Otterbacher, Chee Siang Ang, Marina Litvak, and David Atkins. 2017. Show me you care: Trait empathy, linguistic style, and mimicry on Facebook. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 17, 1 (2017), 1–22.

Digital Library

[62]

Gabriele Paolacci, Jesse Chandler, and Panagiotis G Ipeirotis. 2010. Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5, 5 (2010), 411–419.

[63]

W Barnett Pearce and Stewart M Sharp. 1973. Self-Disclosing Communication. Journal of Communication 23, 4 (1973), 409–425.

[64]

Claudio S Pinhanez, Heloisa Candello, Mauro C Pichiliani, Marisa Vasconcelos, Melina Guerra, Maíra G de Bayser, and Paulo Cavalin. 2018. Different but equal: Comparing user collaboration with digital personal assistants vs. teams of expert agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.08157(2018).

[65]

Eeva Raita and Antti Oulasvirta. 2011. Too good to be bad: Favorable product expectations boost subjective usability ratings. Interacting with Computers 23, 4 (2011), 363–371.

[66]

David G Rand. 2012. The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 299 (2012), 172–179.

[67]

Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y.-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards Empathetic Open-domain Conversation Models: a New Benchmark and Dataset. arXiv:1811.00207 [cs] (Aug. 2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00207 arXiv:1811.00207.

[68]

Jungwook Rhim, Minji Kwak, Yeaeun Gong, and Gahgene Gweon. 2022. Application of humanization to survey chatbots: Change in chatbot perception, interaction experience, and survey data quality. Computers in Human Behavior 126 (2022), 107034.

Digital Library

[69]

Hannes Ritschel, Andreas Seiderer, Kathrin Janowski, Stefan Wagner, and Elisabeth André. 2019. Adaptive linguistic style for an assistive robotic health companion based on explicit human feedback. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA). 247–255.

Digital Library

[70]

Kambiz Saffarizadeh, Maheshwar Boodraj, and Tawfiq M Alashoor. 2017. Conversational Assistants: Investigating Privacy Concerns, Trust, and Self-Disclosure. In Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).

[71]

Benjamin Schüz, Falko F Sniehotta, Amelie Wiedemann, and Rainer Seemann. 2006. Adherence to a daily flossing regimen in university students: Effects of planning when, where, how and what to do in the face of barriers. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 33, 9 (2006), 612–619.

[72]

Vasant Srinivasan and Leila Takayama. 2016. Help me please: Robot politeness strategies for soliciting help from humans. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 4945–4955.

Digital Library

[73]

S Shyam Sundar and Jinyoung Kim. 2019. Machine heuristic: When we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9.

Digital Library

[74]

S Shyam Sundar, Jinyoung Kim, Mary Beth Rosson, and Maria D Molina. 2020. Online privacy heuristics that predict information disclosure. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.

Digital Library

[75]

Ruby Suresh, Katharine C Jones, Jonathan Timothy Newton, and Koula Asimakopoulou. 2012. An exploratory study into whether self-monitoring improves adherence to daily flossing among dental patients. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 72, 1 (2012), 1–7.

[76]

Laura Teddiman. 2009. Contextuality and beyond: Investigating an online diary corpus. In Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.

[77]

Indrani Medhi Thies, Nandita Menon, Sneha Magapu, Manisha Subramony, and Jacki O’neill. 2017. How do you want your chatbot? An exploratory Wizard-of-Oz study with young, urban Indians. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 441–459.

[78]

Paul Thomas, Mary Czerwinksi, Daniel McDuff, and Nick Craswell. 2021. Theories of conversation for conversational IR. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 39, 4 (2021), 1–23.

Digital Library

[79]

Paul Thomas, Mary Czerwinski, Daniel McDuff, Nick Craswell, and Gloria Mark. 2018. Style and alignment in information-seeking conversation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval. 42–51.

Digital Library

[80]

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185, 4157 (1974), 1124–1131.

[81]

Alastair van Heerden, Xolani Ntinga, and Khanya Vilakazi. 2017. The potential of conversational agents to provide a rapid HIV counseling and testing services. In 2017 International Conference on the Frontiers and Advances in Data Science (FADS). IEEE, 80–85.

[82]

Marilyn A Walker, Janet E Cahn, and Stephen J Whittaker. 1997. Improvising linguistic style: Social and affective bases for agent personality. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Autonomous agents. 96–105.

Digital Library

[83]

Thiemo Wambsganss, Rainer Winkler, Matthias Söllner, and Jan Marco Leimeister. 2020. A Conversational Agent to Improve Response Quality in Course Evaluations. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9.

Digital Library

[84]

David Westerman, Autumn P Edwards, Chad Edwards, Zhenyang Luo, and Patric R Spence. 2020. I-It, I-Thou, I-Robot: The Perceived Humanness of AI in Human-Machine Communication. Communication Studies(2020), 1–16.

[85]

Daricia Wilkinson, Öznur Alkan, Q Vera Liao, Massimiliano Mattetti, Inge Vejsbjerg, Bart P Knijnenburg, and Elizabeth Daly. 2021. Why or why not? The effect of justification styles on chatbot recommendations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 39, 4 (2021), 1–21.

Digital Library

[86]

Ziang Xiao, Michelle X Zhou, Wenxi Chen, Huahai Yang, and Changyan Chi. 2020. If I Hear You Correctly: Building and Evaluating Interview Chatbots with Active Listening Skills. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.

Digital Library

[87]

Ziang Xiao, Michelle X Zhou, Q Vera Liao, Gloria Mark, Changyan Chi, Wenxi Chen, and Huahai Yang. 2020. Tell me about yourself: Using an AI-powered chatbot to conduct conversational surveys with open-ended questions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 27, 3(2020), 1–37.

Digital Library

[88]

Michelle X Zhou, Gloria Mark, Jingyi Li, and Huahai Yang. 2019. Trusting virtual agents: The effect of personality. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 9, 2-3(2019), 1–36.

Digital Library

[89]

Jakub Złotowski, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Christoph Bartneck. 2017. Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 100 (2017), 48–54.

Cited By

Zhang YRadishian CBrunswicker SWhitenack DLinna D(2025)Empathetic Language in LLMs under Prompt EngineeringProcedia Computer Science10.1016/j.procs.2024.10.204244:C(308-317)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.procs.2024.10.204
Akram SBuono PLanzilotti R(2024)Exploring the Impact of Conversational Style in Enhancing Recruitment Chatbot InteractionsProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3679318.3685387(1-14)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3679318.3685387
Furini MMariani MMontagna SFerretti S(2024)Conversational Skills of LLM-based Healthcare Chatbot for Personalized CommunicationsProceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good10.1145/3677525.3678693(429-432)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3677525.3678693
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Does Chatbot Language Formality Affect Users’ Self-Disclosure?
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI
2. Security and privacy
  1. Human and societal aspects of security and privacy
    1. Social aspects of security and privacy

Recommendations

Comparing How a Chatbot References User Utterances from Previous Chatting Sessions: An Investigation of Users' Privacy Concerns and Perceptions
HAI '23: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction

Chatbots are capable of remembering and referencing previous conversations, but does this enhance user engagement or infringe on privacy? To explore this trade-off, we investigated the format of how a chatbot references previous conversations with a ...
Exploring the Impact of Conversational Style in Enhancing Recruitment Chatbot Interactions
NordiCHI '24: Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

This research examines the influence of conversational style formalities in recruitment chatbots on job seekers’ willingness to disclose sensitive or confidential information and the quality of their responses. This research was carried out through two ...
Leveraging Large Language Models to Power Chatbots for Collecting User Self-Reported Data
CSCW

Large language models (LLMs) provide a new way to build chatbots by accepting natural language prompts. Yet, it is unclear how to design prompts to power chatbots to carry on naturalistic conversations while pursuing a given goal such as collecting self-...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

CUI '22: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

July 2022

289 pages

ISBN:9781450397391

DOI:10.1145/3543829

Copyright © 2022 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: 15 September 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

NeXT++

Conference

CUI 2022

CUI 2022: 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

July 26 - 28, 2022

Glasgow, United Kingdom

Acceptance Rates

CUI '22 Paper Acceptance Rate 12 of 33 submissions, 36%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 34 of 100 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

16
Total Citations
View Citations
2,202
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1,042
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)127

Reflects downloads up to 27 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zhang YRadishian CBrunswicker SWhitenack DLinna D(2025)Empathetic Language in LLMs under Prompt EngineeringProcedia Computer Science10.1016/j.procs.2024.10.204244:C(308-317)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.procs.2024.10.204
Akram SBuono PLanzilotti R(2024)Exploring the Impact of Conversational Style in Enhancing Recruitment Chatbot InteractionsProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3679318.3685387(1-14)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3679318.3685387
Furini MMariani MMontagna SFerretti S(2024)Conversational Skills of LLM-based Healthcare Chatbot for Personalized CommunicationsProceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good10.1145/3677525.3678693(429-432)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3677525.3678693
Wong NJeong SReddy MStamatis CLattie EJacobs M(2024)Voice Assistants for Mental Health Services: Designing Dialogues with Homebound Older AdultsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661536(844-858)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661536
Desai SDubiel MLeiva L(2024)Examining Humanness as a Metaphor to Design Voice User InterfacesProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces10.1145/3640794.3665535(1-15)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640794.3665535
Chin JDesai SLin SMejia S(2024)Like My Aunt Dorothy: Effects of Conversational Styles on Perceptions, Acceptance and Metaphorical Descriptions of Voice Assistants during Later AdulthoodProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373658:CSCW1(1-21)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637365
Cui YLee YJamieson JYamashita NLee Y(2024)Exploring Effects of Chatbot's Interpretation and Self-disclosure on Mental Illness StigmaProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373298:CSCW1(1-33)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637329
Jo EJeong YPark SEpstein DKim Y(2024)Understanding the Impact of Long-Term Memory on Self-Disclosure with Large Language Model-Driven Chatbots for Public Health InterventionProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642420(1-21)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642420
Govers JVelloso EKostakos VGoncalves J(2024)AI-Driven Mediation Strategies for Audience Depolarisation in Online DebatesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642322(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642322
Valenzuela APuntoni SHoffman DCastelo NDe Freitas JDietvorst BHildebrand CHuh YMeyer RSweeney MTalaifar STomaino GWertenbroch K(2024)How Artificial Intelligence Constrains the Human ExperienceJournal of the Association for Consumer Research10.1086/7307099:3(241-256)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1086/730709
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten