skip to main content
10.1145/3586182.3616698acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesuistConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

EChat: An Emotion-Aware Adaptive UI for a Messaging App

Published:29 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

While online forums provide a convenient platform for people to interact anonymously with others who share similar interests, they have to deal with large amounts of hate speech and inappropriate content, often posted by users in the heat of the moment. This can have a negative impact on the psychological state of other forum users and moderators, who are tasked to identify and delete such content. We investigate a preventative approach to this problem with the design of EChat, a proof-of-concept augmentation to online forums that helps users attend to their emotional state. The user’s current emotional state is detected using facial emotion recognition, and the aesthetics of the UI are adapted to reflect this emotion. In case of an emotion with negative valence such as anger or sadness, the UI aesthetic is gradually transitioned to one that evokes a more positive emotion. Semi-structured interviews with EChat users confirm the potential of emotion-aware design to reduce hateful content, and also highlight important design considerations.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Jussi Ängeslevä, Carson Reynolds, and Sile O’Modhrain. 2004. EmoteMail. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 Posters. 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lisa Feldman Barrett and James J Gross. 2001. Emotional intelligence: A process model of emotion representation and regulation. (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Upasna Bhandari, Klarissa Chang, and Tillmann Neben. 2019. Understanding the impact of perceived visual aesthetics on user evaluations: An emotional perspective. Information & management 56, 1 (2019), 85–93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Reuben Binns, Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2017. Like trainer, like bot? Inheritance of bias in algorithmic content moderation. In International conference on social informatics. Springer, 405–415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Iris Birman. 2018. Moderation in different communities on Reddit–A qualitative analysis study. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Svenja Boberg, Tim Schatto-Eckrodt, Lena Frischlich, and Thorsten Quandt. 2018. The moral gatekeeper? Moderation and deletion of user-generated content in a leading news forum. Media and Communication 6, 4 (2018), 58–69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Moira Burke and Robert E Kraut. 2014. Growing closer on Facebook: Changes in tie strength through social network site use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 4187–4196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Chaitrali Gandhi, Matthew Wortley Mustelier, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Crossmod: A cross-community learning-based system to assist reddit moderators. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bryan Dosono and Bryan Semaan. 2019. Moderation practices as emotional labor in sustaining online communities: The case of AAPI identity work on Reddit. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach. 2020. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951719897945.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Miriam Greenberg. 2019. A Study of Community Engagement on Discord for Game Marketing-Case TJR Games Oy. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Michelle CP Hendriks and Ad JJM Vingerhoets. 2006. Social messages of crying faces: Their influence on anticipated person perception, emotions and behavioural responses. Cognition and Emotion 20, 6 (2006), 878–886.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jesús Ibáñez. 2011. Minimalist approach to show emotions via a flock of smileys. Journal of network and computer applications 34, 4 (2011), 1283–1291.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jesús Ibáñez and Carlos Delgado-Mata. 2013. Can the same Visual Modality Express Arousal or Valence Depending on the other Modalities it is Combined with?Procedia Technology 7 (2013), 424–435.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Yubo Kou and Xinning Gui. 2021. Flag and Flaggability in Automated Moderation: The Case of Reporting Toxic Behavior in an Online Game Community. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. Dailydialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.03957 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mainack Mondal, Leandro Araújo Silva, and Fabrício Benevenuto. 2017. A measurement study of hate speech in social media. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM conference on hypertext and social media. 85–94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Erik C Nook, Kristen A Lindquist, and Jamil Zaki. 2015. A new look at emotion perception: Concepts speed and shape facial emotion recognition.Emotion 15, 5 (2015), 569.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Leonhard Oberascher and Michael Gallmetzer. 2003. Colour and emotion. In Proceedings of AIC. 370–374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Omkar M Parkhi, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. 2015. Deep face recognition. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Robert Plutchik. 2001. The nature of emotions: Human emotions have deep evolutionary roots, a fact that may explain their complexity and provide tools for clinical practice. American scientist 89, 4 (2001), 344–350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. James A Russell. 1980. A circumplex model of affect.Journal of personality and social psychology 39, 6 (1980), 1161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Koustuv Saha, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2019. Prevalence and psychological effects of hateful speech in online college communities. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on web science. 255–264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J Alfredo Sánchez, Norma P Hernández, Julio C Penagos, and Yulia Ostróvskaya. 2006. Conveying mood and emotion in instant messaging by using a two-dimensional model for affective states. In Proceedings of VII Brazilian symposium on Human factors in computing systems. 66–72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Shabnoor Siddiqui, Tajinder Singh, 2016. Social media its impact with positive and negative aspects. International journal of computer applications technology and research 5, 2 (2016), 71–75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Paul J Silvia and Christopher M Barona. 2009. Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical studies of the arts 27, 1 (2009), 25–42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Miriah Steiger, Timir J Bharucha, Sukrit Venkatagiri, Martin J Riedl, and Matthew Lease. 2021. The psychological well-being of content moderators: the emotional labor of commercial moderation and avenues for improving support. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Alistair Sutcliffe. 2009. Designing for user engagement: Aesthetic and attractive user interfaces. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics 2, 1 (2009), 1–55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Madeline Toubiana and Charlene Zietsma. 2017. The message is on the wall? Emotions, social media and the dynamics of institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal 60, 3 (2017), 922–953.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Kristen Vaccaro, Christian Sandvig, and Karrie Karahalios. 2020. " At the End of the Day Facebook Does What ItWants" How Users Experience Contesting Algorithmic Content Moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Emily Van der Nagel and Jordan Frith. 2015. Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Jian Wang and Yen Hsu. 2020. The relationship of symmetry, complexity, and shape in mobile interface aesthetics, from an emotional perspective—A case study of the smartwatch. Symmetry 12, 9 (2020), 1403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Sandy Wolfson and Gill Case. 2000. The effects of sound and colour on responses to a computer game. Interacting with computers 13, 2 (2000), 183–192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. EChat: An Emotion-Aware Adaptive UI for a Messaging App

    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
      UIST '23 Adjunct: Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
      October 2023
      424 pages
      ISBN:9798400700965
      DOI:10.1145/3586182

      Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 29 October 2023

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate842of3,967submissions,21%

      Upcoming Conference

      UIST '24
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)130
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)18

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format