When a Chatbot Disappoints You: Expectancy Violation in Human-Chatbot Interaction in a Social Support Context

IF 4.9 1区文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Communication Research Pub Date : 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1177/00936502231221669

M. Rheu, Yue (Nancy) Dai, Jingbo Meng, Wei Peng

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although users’ expectations of a chatbot’s performance could greatly shape their interaction experience, they have been underexplored in the context of social support where chatbots are gaining popularity. A 2 × 2 experiment created expectancy violation and confirmation conditions by matching or mismatching a chatbot’s expertise label (expert vs. non-expert) and its interactional contingency (contingent vs. generic feedback to users). Contingent feedback from chatbots was found to have positive effects on participants’ evaluation of the bot and their perceived emotional validation, regardless of the bot’s expertise label. When providing generic feedback to participants, a bot received worse evaluation and induced less emotional validation on participants when it was labeled as an expert, rather than a non-expert, highlighting the detrimental effect of negative expectancy violation than negative expectancy confirmation in interactions with a social support chatbot. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

当聊天机器人让你失望时：社会支持背景下人类与聊天机器人互动中的期望违规行为

虽然用户对聊天机器人性能的期望会极大地影响他们的交互体验，但在聊天机器人日益流行的社交支持环境中，这种期望还未得到充分探索。一项 2 × 2 实验通过匹配或错配聊天机器人的专业知识标签（专家与非专家）及其互动或然性（向用户提供的或然反馈与一般反馈），创造了违反预期和确认预期的条件。结果发现，无论聊天机器人的专业知识标签如何，聊天机器人的或有反馈都会对参与者对机器人的评价和感知到的情感确认产生积极影响。在向参与者提供一般反馈时，当机器人被贴上专家标签而不是非专家标签时，参与者对机器人的评价更差，获得的情感确认也更少，这突出表明在与社交支持聊天机器人互动时，负面期望违反比负面期望确认更不利。本文还讨论了其理论和实践意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Communication Research COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

17.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Empirical research in communication began in the 20th century, and there are more researchers pursuing answers to communication questions today than at any other time. The editorial goal of Communication Research is to offer a special opportunity for reflection and change in the new millennium. To qualify for publication, research should, first, be explicitly tied to some form of communication; second, be theoretically driven with results that inform theory; third, use the most rigorous empirical methods; and fourth, be directly linked to the most important problems and issues facing humankind. Critieria do not privilege any particular context; indeed, we believe that the key problems facing humankind occur in close relationships, groups, organiations, and cultures.