人类、混血儿还是机器?探索语音助手的可信度

Q1 Social Sciences
Lisa Weidmüller
{"title":"人类、混血儿还是机器?探索语音助手的可信度","authors":"Lisa Weidmüller","doi":"10.30658/hmc.4.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates how people assess the trustworthiness of perceptually hybrid communicative technologies such as voice-based assistants (VBAs). VBAs are often perceived as hybrids between human and machine, which challenges previously distinct definitions of human and machine trustworthiness. Thus, this study explores how the two trustworthiness models can be combined in a hybrid trustworthiness model, which model (human, hybrid, or machine) is most applicable to examine VBA trustworthiness, and whether this differs between respondents with different levels of prior experience with VBAs. Results from two surveys revealed that, overall, the human model exhibited the best model fit; however, the hybrid model also showed acceptable model fit as prior experience increased. Findings are discussed considering the ongoing discourse to establish adequate measures for HMC research.","PeriodicalId":34860,"journal":{"name":"HumanMachine Communication Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human, Hybrid, or Machine? Exploring the Trustworthiness of Voice-Based Assistants\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Weidmüller\",\"doi\":\"10.30658/hmc.4.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study investigates how people assess the trustworthiness of perceptually hybrid communicative technologies such as voice-based assistants (VBAs). VBAs are often perceived as hybrids between human and machine, which challenges previously distinct definitions of human and machine trustworthiness. Thus, this study explores how the two trustworthiness models can be combined in a hybrid trustworthiness model, which model (human, hybrid, or machine) is most applicable to examine VBA trustworthiness, and whether this differs between respondents with different levels of prior experience with VBAs. Results from two surveys revealed that, overall, the human model exhibited the best model fit; however, the hybrid model also showed acceptable model fit as prior experience increased. Findings are discussed considering the ongoing discourse to establish adequate measures for HMC research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HumanMachine Communication Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HumanMachine Communication Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.4.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HumanMachine Communication Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.4.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本研究调查了人们如何评估感知混合通信技术的可信度,如基于语音的助手(VBAs)。vba通常被视为人与机器的混合体,这挑战了以前对人与机器可信度的不同定义。因此,本研究探讨了如何将这两种可信度模型结合在一个混合可信度模型中,哪种模型(人、混合或机器)最适用于检验VBA的可信度,以及这是否在具有不同水平VBA先验经验的受访者之间有所不同。两项调查的结果表明,总体而言,人体模型表现出最佳的模型拟合;然而,随着先验经验的增加,混合模型也显示出可接受的模型拟合。研究结果讨论考虑正在进行的话语,以建立适当的措施,为HMC研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Human, Hybrid, or Machine? Exploring the Trustworthiness of Voice-Based Assistants
This study investigates how people assess the trustworthiness of perceptually hybrid communicative technologies such as voice-based assistants (VBAs). VBAs are often perceived as hybrids between human and machine, which challenges previously distinct definitions of human and machine trustworthiness. Thus, this study explores how the two trustworthiness models can be combined in a hybrid trustworthiness model, which model (human, hybrid, or machine) is most applicable to examine VBA trustworthiness, and whether this differs between respondents with different levels of prior experience with VBAs. Results from two surveys revealed that, overall, the human model exhibited the best model fit; however, the hybrid model also showed acceptable model fit as prior experience increased. Findings are discussed considering the ongoing discourse to establish adequate measures for HMC research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信