Emotional responses to human values in technology: The case of conversational agents

References

• Beirl, D., Yuill, N., & Rogers, Y. (2019). Using voice assistant skills in family life. Proceedings of the 2019 CSCL International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 13, 96–103. ACM. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10084820/
   Google Scholar
• Beneteau, E., Richards, O. K., Zhang, M., Kientz, J. A., Yip, J., & Hiniker, A. (2019). Communication breakdowns between families and Alexa. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300473
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, M. A. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing, and interpreting focus group research. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (Vol. 225, pp. 41). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, E. (2019). Hey Google, can I ask you something in private? Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300488
   Google Scholar
• Choi, D., Kwak, D., Cho, M., & Lee, S. (2020). “Nobody speaks that fast!” An empirical study of speech rate in conversational agents for people with vision impairments. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376569
   Google Scholar
• Clark, L., Munteanu, C., Wade, V., Cowan, B. R., Pantidi, N., Cooney, O., Doyle, P., Garaialde, D., Edwards, J., Spillane, B., Gilmartin, E., & Murad, C. (2019). What makes a good conversation? Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300705
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, P., Cheyer, A., Horvitz, E., El Kaliouby, R., & Whittaker, S. (2016). On the future of personal assistants. Extended abstracts of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1032–1037. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2886425
   Google Scholar
• Cowan, B. R., Pantidi, N., Coyle, D., Morrissey, K., Clarke, P., Al-Shehri, S., Earley, D., & Bandeira, N. (2017). “What can I help you with?”: Infrequent users’ experiences of intelligent personal assistants. Proceedings of the MobileHCI 2017 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098539
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J., & Nathan, L. P. (2015). Value sensitive design: Applications, adaptions, and critiques. In J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains (pp. 11–40). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Desmet, P. M. A. (2012). Faces of product pleasure: 25 positive emotions in human-product interactions. International Journal of Design. 6(2) https://ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmet, P. M. A., & Roeser, S. (2015). Emotions in Design for Values. In J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application Domains (pp. 203–218). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Druga, S., Williams, R., Breazeal, C., & Resnick, M. (2017). “Hey Google is it ok if I eat you?” Initial Explorations in Child-Agent Interaction. Proceedings of the IDC 2017 conference on interaction design and children. 595–600. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3084330
   Google Scholar
• eMarketer. (2018). US Smart Speaker User Penetration, by Demographic, 2018. https://www.emarketer.com/chart/218758/us-smart-speaker-user-penetration-by-demographic-2018-of-population-each-group
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchsberger, V., Moser, C., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Values in action (ViA): Combining usability, user experience and user acceptance. In J. A. Konstan (Ed.), Extended abstracts of the 2012 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1793–1798. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2223711
   Google Scholar
• Görnemann, E., & Spiekermann, S. (2022). Moments of truth: How rupturing events uncover the value impacts of technology. In S. Roth & H. Corsten (Eds.), Handbuch der Digitalisierung (pp. 73–90). Franz Vahlen.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, N. (1949). Ethik. De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. (2005). The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In M. A. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: from usability to enjoyment (pp. 31–42). Springer Science + Business Media Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. (2013). User experience and experience design. The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/user-experience-and-experience-design
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M., & Roto, V. (2007). Being and doing - a perspective on user experience and its measurement. Interfaces, 72, 10–12. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.146.3362
   Google Scholar
• Highsmith, J. A. (2010). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Addison-Wesley; Safari Books Online.
   Google Scholar
• Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
   Google Scholar
• IEEE Standards Association. (2021). IEEE 7000 Standard model process for addressing ethical concerns during system design. ( IEEE 7000-2021). IEEE Computer Society. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/7000/6781/
   Google Scholar
• Ihde, D., & Malafouris, L. (2019). Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0321-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jiang, J., Jeng, W., & He, D. (2013). How do users respond to voice input errors? Lexical and phonetic query reformulation in voice search. Proceedings of the 2013 SIGIR conference on Research and development in information Retrieval. 143–152. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484092
   Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V. (2010). Facing the dark side of life: The challenge of addressing users’ fears in interaction design. Proceedings of the 2010 CREATE international conference on The Interaction Design. 66–67. BCS Learning & Development Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, E. (2011). Material ethics of value: Max Scheler and Nicolai Hartmann. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Keltner, D., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 13(5), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiseleva, J., Williams, K., Jiang, J., Hassan Awadallah, A., Crook, A. C., Zitouni, I., & Anastasakos, T. (2016). Understanding user satisfaction with intelligent assistants. Proceedings of the 2016 CHIIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 121–130. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2854946.2854961
   Google Scholar
• Kluckhohn, C. (1962). Values and value orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons, E. A. Shils, & N. J. Smelser (Eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action (pp. 388–433). Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Koksal, I. (2018). Who’s the Amazon Alexa target market, anyway? Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilkerkoksal/2018/10/10/whos-the-amazon-alexa-target-market-anyway
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K., Mathet, Y., Bouvry, S., & Widlöcher, A. (2016). On the reliability of unitizing textual continua: Further developments. Quality & Quantity, 50(6), 2347–2364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0289-7
   Google Scholar
• Kroes, P., & Verbeek, -P.-P. (2014). The moral status of technical artefacts. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuzminykh, A., Sun, J., Govindaraju, N., Avery, J., & Lank, E. (2020). Genie in the bottle: Anthropomorphized perceptions of conversational agents. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376665
   Google Scholar
• Langford, J., & McDonagh, D. (2003). Focus group tools. In J. Langford & D. McDonagh (Eds.), Focus groups: Supporting effective product development (pp. 166–218). Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, J., Zimmerman, B., & Schaub, F. (2018). Alexa, are you listening? Privacy perceptions, concerns and privacy-seeking behaviors with smart speakers. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274371
   Google Scholar
• Loose, N., Spearman, J., & Gewiese, J. (2020). Statista global consumer survey: Smart speaker: Amazon Echo (Alexa) brand report (Österreich) 2020. https://de.statista.com/statistik/studie/id/80314/dokument/smart-speaker-amazon-echo-alexa-brand-report-oesterreich/
   Google Scholar
• Lopatovska, I., Rink, K., Knight, I., Raines, K., Cosenza, K., Williams, H., Sorsche, P., Hirsch, D., Li, Q., & Martinez, A. (2018). Talk to me: Exploring user interactions with the Amazon Alexa. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(4), 984–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618759414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopatovska, I., & Williams, H. (2018). Personification of the Amazon Alexa. Proceedings of the 2018 CHIIR Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval. 265–268. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3176349.3176868
   Google Scholar
• Lovato, S., & Piper, A. M. (2015). “Siri, is this you?”: Understanding young children’s interactions with voice input systems. Proceedings of the 2015 IDC International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 335–338. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771910
   Google Scholar
• Luger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016). “Like having a really bad PA”: The gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5286–5297. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858288
   Google Scholar
• Mahlke, S., & Thüring, M. (2007). The diversity of non-instrumental qualities in human-technology interaction. Mmi Interaktiv, 13, 55–64. http://mmi-interaktiv.de/uploads/media/05-mahlke_et_al.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522–526. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/13.6.522
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meliones, A., & Maidonis, S. (2020). DALÍ: A digital assistant for the elderly and visually impaired using Alexa speech interaction and TV display. Proceedings of the 2020 PETRA International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3389189.3397972
   Google Scholar
• Moorthy, A., & Vu, K. (2015). Privacy concerns for use of voice activated personal assistant in the public space. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(4), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2014.986642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moussawi, S. (2018). User experiences with personal intelligent agents: A sensory, physical, functional and cognitive affordances view. Proceedings of the 2018 CPR Conference on Computers and People Research. 86–92. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209626.3209709
   Google Scholar
• Myers, C., Furqan, A., Nebolsky, J., Caro, K., & Zhu, J. (2018). Patterns for how users overcome obstacles in voice user interfaces. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Nasirian, F., Ahmadian, M., & Lee, O.-K. (2017). AI-based voice assistant systems: Evaluating from the interaction and trust perspectives. Proceedings of the 2017 AMCIS Americas Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems. AIS. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2017/AdoptionIT/Presentations/27/
   Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Gong, L. (2000). Speech interfaces from an evolutionary perspective. Communications of the ACM, 43(9), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/348941.348976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of the 1994 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 72–78. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703
   Google Scholar
• Nawaz, A. (2012). A comparison of card-sorting analysis methods. Proceedings of the 2012 APCHI Asia pacific conference on Computer human interaction. 583–592. ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, Q. N., & Sidorova, A. (2017). AI capabilities and user experiences: A comparative study of user reviews for assistant and non-assistant mobile apps. Proceedings of the 2017 AMCIS Americas Conference on Information Systems. AIS.
   Google Scholar
• Nurkka, P. (2008). User experience evaluation based on values and emotions Pre-print article. Tampere University of Technology]. Citeseerx. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.177.7230&rep=rep1&type=pdf
   Google Scholar
• Perlaviciute, G., Steg, L., Contzen, N., Roeser, S., & Huijts, N. (2018). Emotional responses to energy projects: Insights for responsible decision making in a sustainable energy transition. Sustainability, 10(7), 2526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion, a psychoevolutionary synthesis. Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., Reeves, S., & Sharples, S. (2018). Voice interfaces in everyday life. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174214
   Google Scholar
• Portela, M., & Granell-Canut, C. (2017). A new friend in our smartphone? Observing interactions with chatbots in the search of emotional engagement. Proceedings of the 2017 interacción international conference on human computer interaction. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123818.3123826
   Google Scholar
• Purington, A., Taft, J. G., Sannon, S., Bazarova, N. N., & Taylor, S. H. (2017). “Alexa is my new BFF”. Extended Abstracts of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053246
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, S., Porcheron, M., & Fischer, J. (2018). ‘This is not what we wanted’: Designing for conversation with voice interfaces. Interactions, 26(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/3296699
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, T. J., & Olson, J. C. (2001). Understanding consumer decision making: The means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 104(3), 192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rzepka, C. (2019). Examining the use of voice assistants: A value-focused thinking approach. Proceedings of the 2019 AMCIS Americas Conference on Information Systems. AIS. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2019/human_computer_interact/human_computer_interact/20
   Google Scholar
• Saariluoma, P., & Jokinen, J. P. P. (2014). Emotional dimensions of user experience: A user psychological analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(4), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.858460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sah, Y. J., & Peng, W. (2015). Effects of visual and linguistic anthropomorphic cues on social perception, self-awareness, and information disclosure in a health website. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Scheler, M. (1973). Formalism in ethics and non-formal ethics of values: A new attempt toward the foundation of an ethical personalism. Original work published in 1921. Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1061–1086. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.6.1061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiekermann, S. (2016). Ethical IT innovation: A value-based system design approach. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Spiekermann, S., & Winkler, T. (2020). Value-based engineering for ethically aligned design. Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13676.
   Google Scholar
• Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800107
   Google Scholar
• Statista. (2020). Statista global consumer survey: Welchen smart-speaker mit integriertem Assistenten besitzen Sie? [Statista global consumer survey: Which smart speaker with integrated assistant do you own?]. Statista. https://de.statista.com/prognosen/1000260/oesterreich-beliebteste-smart-speaker-marken
   Google Scholar
• Steinert, S., & Roeser, S. (2020). Emotions, values and technology: Illuminating the blind spots. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(3), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1738024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Poel, I., & Kroes, P. (2014). Can Technology Embody Values? In P. Kroes & -P.-P. Verbeek (Eds.), Philosophy of engineering and technology. the moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 103–124). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek, -P.-P. (2008). Morality in design: Design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In P. Kroes, P. E. Vermaas, A. Light, & S. A. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture (pp. 91–103). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkler, T., & Spiekermann, S. (2019). Human values as the basis for sustainable information system design. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 38(3), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2019.2930268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wulf, L., Garschall, M., Himmelsbach, J., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). Hands free - care free: Elderly people taking advantage of speech-only interaction. Proceedings of the 2014 NordiCHI Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 203–206. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639251
   Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2020). What are you talking to? Understanding children’s perceptions of conversational agents. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376416
   Google Scholar
• Yang, X., Aurisicchio, M., & Baxter, W. (2019). Understanding affective experiences with conversational agents. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300772
   Google Scholar
• Zamora, J. (2017). I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that: Chatbot perception and expectations. Proceedings of the 2017 HAI International Conference on Human Agent Interaction. 253–260. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125739.3125766
   Google Scholar