Perceiving a Mind in a Chatbot: Effect of Mind Perception and Social Cues on Co-presence, Closeness, and Intention to Use

References

• Antonacopoulos, N. M. D., & Pychyl, T. A. (2008). An examination of the relations between social support, anthropomorphism and stress among dog owners. Anthrozoös, 21, 139–152. doi:10.2752/175303708X305783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Araujo, T. (2018). Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 183–189. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avula, S., Chadwick, G., Arguello, J., & Capra, R. (2018). Searchbots: User engagement with chatbots during collaborative search. Proceedings of the 2018 conference on human information interaction & retrieval (pp. 52–61). doi:10.1145/3176349.3176380
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, J. L., & Keil, F. C. (1996). Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in god concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 219–247. doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellur, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2017). Talking health with a machine: How does message interactivity affect attitudes and cognitions? Human Communication Research, 43, 25–53. doi:10.1111/hcre.12094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 456–480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brody, S., & Diakopoulos, N. (2011). Cooooooooooooooollllllllllllll‼‼‼‼‼‼‼: Using word lengthening to detect sentiment in microblogs. Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 562–570). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145432.2145498
   Google Scholar
• Byron, K., & Baldridge, D. C. (2007). E-mail recipients’ impressions of senders’ likability: The interactive effect of nonverbal cues and recipients’ personality. Journal of Business Communication, 44, 137–160. doi:10.1177/0021943606297902
   Google Scholar
• Cathcart, N., Carletta, J., & Klein, E. (2003). A shallow model of backchannel continuers in spoken dialogue. Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 51–58). doi:10.3115/1067807.1067816
   Google Scholar
• Ciechanowski, L., Przegalinska, A., Magnuski, M., & Gloor, P. (2019). In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human–Chatbot interaction. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92, 539–548. doi:10.1016/j.future.2018.01.055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355–366. doi:10.2307/248682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Graaf, M. M. A., & Allouch, S. B. (2017). The influence of prior expectations of a robot’s lifelikeness on users’ intentions to treat a zoomorphic robot as a companion. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9, 17–32. doi:10.1007/s12369-016-0340-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, M.-P., Rodriguez‐Torres, R., Rodriguez‐Perez, A., & Dovidio, J. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non‐uniquely” human emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 71–96. doi:10.1080/02699930244000444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devillers, L., & Vidrascu, L. (2006). Real-life emotions detection with lexical and paralinguistic cues on human-human call center dialogs. Proceedings of Interspeech 2006, 801–804. Retrieved from https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2006/i06_1636.html
   Google Scholar
• Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864–886. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández, R. A. S., Sanchez-Lopez, J. L., Sampedro, C., Bavle, H., Molina, M., & Campoy, P. (2016). Natural user interfaces for human-drone multi-modal interaction. 2016 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) (pp. 1013–1022). doi:10.1109/ICUAS.2016.7502665
   Google Scholar
• Gerhard, M., Moore, D., & Hobbs, D. (2004). Embodiment and copresence in collaborative interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61, 453–480. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.12.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Go, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2019). Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 304–316. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2009). Backchannel-inviting cues in task-oriented dialogue. Proceedings of Interspeech 2009, 1019–1022.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–259. doi:10.2307/1416950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heo, M., & Lee, K. J. (2018). Chatbot as a new business communication tool: The case of Naver Talktalk. Business Communication Research and Practice, 1, 41–45. doi:10.22682/bcrp.2018.1.1.41
   Google Scholar
• Hill, J., Randolph Ford, W., & Farreras, I. G. (2015). Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human–Human online conversations and human–Chatbot conversations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 245–250. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hur, S. (2016). The language use of university students in KakaoTalk. Han-Geul, (314), 103–143. doi:10.22557/HG.2016.12.314.103
   Google Scholar
• IJsselsteijn, W. A., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., & Avons, S. E. (2000). Presence: Concept, determinants, and measurement. Proceedings of the SPIE, Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V, 3959, 520–530. doi:10.1117/12.387188
   Google Scholar
• Inoue, M., & Ueno, H. (2016). Dialogue system characterization by back-channelling patterns extracted from dialogue corpus. The International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2736–2740.
   Google Scholar
• Jain, J., Lund, A., & Wixon, D. (2011). The future of natural user interfaces. CHI ’11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 211–214). doi:10.1145/1979742.1979527
   Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., Shribergy, E., Fox, B., & Curl, T. (1998). Lexical, prosodic, and syntactic cues for dialog acts. Proceedings of ACL-COLING workshop on discourse relations and discourse markers (pp. 114–120). Stroudsburg, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Kalman, Y. M., & Gergle, D. (2010). CMC cues enrich lean online communication: The case of letter and punctuation mark repetitions. Proceedings of the fifth mediterranean conference on information systems. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2010/45
   Google Scholar
• Kerly, A., & Bull, S. (2006). The potential for chatbots in negotiated learner modelling: A wizard-of-oz study. In M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 443–452). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kozak, M. N., Marsh, A. A., & Wegner, D. M. (2006). What do i think you’re doing? Action identification and mind attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 543–555. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.543
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kugler, K. C., Trail, J. B., Dziak, J. J., & Collins, L. M. (2012). Effect coding versus dummy coding in analysis of data from factorial experiments (pp. 1–32). Retrieved from The Pennsylvania State University website http://methodology.psu.edu/db/node/353
   Google Scholar
• Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer‐mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321–341. doi:10.1080/10919399209540190
   Google Scholar
• Lee, K. M. (2004a). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27–50. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, K. M. (2004b). Why presence occurs: Evolutionary psychology, media equation, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13, 494–505. doi:10.1162/1054746041944830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., Ha, M., Kwon, S., Shim, Y., & Kim, J. (2019). Egoistic and altruistic motivation: How to induce users’ willingness to help for imperfect AI. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 180–196. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebman, N., & Gergle, D. (2016). It’s (not) simply a matter of time: The relationship between cmc cues and interpersonal affinity. Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 570–581). doi:10.1145/2818048.2819945
   Google Scholar
• López, G., Quesada, L., & Guerrero, L. A. (2018). Alexa vs. Siri vs. Cortana vs. Google assistant: A comparison of speech-based natural user interfaces. In I. L. Nunes (Ed.), Advances in human factors and systems interaction (pp. 241–250). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Moses, L. J., Baldwin, D. A., Rosicky, J. G., & Tidball, G. (2001). Evidence for referential understanding in the emotions domain at twelve and eighteen months. Child Development, 72, 718–735. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81–103. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., Steuer, J., Henriksen, L., & Dryer, D. C. (1994). Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: Performance assessments of computers subsequent to “self-” or “other-” evaluations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 543–559. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1994.1025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72–78). doi:10.1145/191666.191703
   Google Scholar
• Noguchi, H., & Den, Y. (1998). Prosody-based detection of the context of backchannel responses. Fifth international conference on spoken language processing. Retrieved from https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/icslp_1998/i98_0662.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 481–494. doi:10.1162/105474603322761289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohno, T., Murata, M., & Matsubara, S. (2017). Collection of responsive utterances to show attentive hearing attitude to speakers. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication. doi:10.1145/3022227.3022257
   Google Scholar
• Park, H. W., Gelsomini, M., Lee, J. J., & Breazeal, C. (2017). Telling stories to robots: The effect of backchanneling on a child’s storytelling. 2017 12th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 100–108). New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Pieroni, M., Rizzello, L., Rosini, N., Fantoni, G., Rossi, D. D., & Mazzei, D. (2015). Affective internet of things: Mimicking human-like personality in designing smart-objects. 2015 IEEE 2nd world forum on internet of things (WF-IoT) (pp. 400–405). doi:10.1109/WF-IoT.2015.7389088
   Google Scholar
• Rashid, R. A. (2016). Topic continuation strategies employed by teachers in managing supportive conversations on Facebook Timeline. Discourse Studies, 18, 188–203. doi:10.1177/1461445615623906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shimizu, Y. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2004). Infants’ attribution of a goal to a morphologically unfamiliar agent. Developmental Science, 7, 425–430. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00362.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., & Kim, H.-S. (2016). Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: Effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Research, 43, 595–625. doi:10.1177/0093650214534962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosa, N., & Nakatsu, R. (1996). Life-like communication agent-emotion sensing character “MIC” and feeling session character “MUSE”. Proceedings of the third IEEE international conference on multimedia computing and systems (pp. 12–19). doi:10.1109/MMCS.1996.534948
   Google Scholar
• Toxtli, C., Monroy-Hernández, A., & Cranshaw, J. (2018). Understanding chatbot-mediated task management. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173632
   Google Scholar
• Vandergriff, I. (2013). Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics, 51, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veglis, A., & Maniou, T. A. (2019). Chatbots on the rise: A new narrative in journalism. Studies in Media and Communication, 7(1), 1–6. doi:10.11114/smc.v7i1.3986
   Google Scholar
• Verhagen, T., van Nes, J., Feldberg, F., & van Dolen, W. (2014). Virtual customer service agents: Using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 529–545. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50–88. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00295.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan, E. W., Chen, R. P., & Jin, L. (2016). Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 1008–1030. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 219–232. doi:10.1177/1745691610369336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 383–388. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113–117. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, B., Zhang, W., & Li, D. (2011). Copresence and its social-relational antecedents in computer-mediated communication: The case of instant messenger. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 27, 991–1009. doi:10.1080/10447318.2011.555316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, R. F., & Lee, J. (2004). Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in Korean and English conversations. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 380–407. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00266.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar