Humanizing self-administered surveys: experiments on social presence in web and IVR surveys

Abstract Social interface theory has had widespread influence within the field of human–computer interaction. The basic thesis is that humanizing cues in a computer interface can engender responses from users similar to those produced by interactions between humans. These humanizing cues often confer human characteristics on the interface (such as gender) or suggest that the interface is an agent actively interacting with the respondent. In contrast, the survey interviewing literature suggests that computer administration of surveys on highly sensitive topics reduces or eliminates social desirability effects, even when such humanizing features as recorded human voices are used. In attempting to reconcile these apparently contradictory findings, we varied features of the interface in two Web surveys and a telephone survey. In the first Web experiment, we presented an image of (1) a male researcher, (2) a female researcher, or (3) the study logo at several points throughout the questionnaire. This experiment also varied the extent of personal feedback provided to the respondent. The second Web study compared three versions of the survey: (1) One that included a photograph of a female researcher and text messages from her; (2) another version that included only the text messages; and (3) a final version that included neither the picture nor the personalizing messages. Finally, we carried out a telephone study using a method—interactive voice response (IVR)—in which the computer plays a recording of the questions over the telephone and respondents indicate their answers by pressing keys on the telephone handset. The IVR study varied the voice that administered the questions. All three surveys used questionnaires that included sensitive questions about sexual behavior and illicit drug use and questions on gender-related attitudes. We find limited support for the social interface hypothesis. There are consistent, though small, effects of the “gender” of the interface on reported gender attitudes, but few effects on socially desirable responding. We propose several possible reasons for the contradictory evidence on social interfaces.

[1]  Philip C Cooley,et al.  Automating Telephone Surveys: Using T-ACASI to Obtain Data on Sensitive Topics. , 1998, Computers in human behavior.

[2]  Youngme Moon.  Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers , 2000 .

[3]  D. Paulhus.  Measurement and control of response bias. , 1991 .

[4]  John P. Robinson,et al.  Measures Of Personality And Social Psychological Attitudes , 1991 .

[5]  S. Kiesler,et al.  “Social” human-computer interaction , 1997 .

[6]  Susan M. Rogers,et al.  Automated Self-interviewing and the Survey Measurement of Sensitive Behaviors , 1998 .

[7]  Jean M. Converse,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF BLACK AND WHITE INTERVIEWERS ON BLACK RESPONSES IN 1968 , 1971 .

[8]  E. Kane,et al.  INTERVIEWER GENDER AND GENDER ATTITUDES , 1993 .

[9]  K. Athey,et al.  Two experiments showing the effect of the interviewer's racial background on responses to questionnaires concerning racial issues. , 1960 .

[10]  Youngme Moon,et al.  Impression management in computer-based interviews: The effects of input modality, output modality, and distance. , 1998 .

[11]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[12]  Jelke Bethlehem,et al.  Computer Assisted Survey Information Collection , 1998 .

[13]  C. Nass,et al.  Truth is beauty: researching embodied conversational agents , 2001 .

[14]  P. Cooley,et al.  The Impact of T-ACASI Interviewing on Reported Drug Use among Men Who Have Sex with Men , 2000, Substance use & misuse.

[15]  Lee Sproull,et al.  When the Interface Is a Face , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[16]  Curt J. Dommeyer,et al.  The Effects of a Photograph on Mail Survey Response , 1996 .

[17]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Human values and the design of computer technology , 1997 .

[18]  D. Paulhus.  Two-component models of socially desirable responding. , 1984 .

[19]  C. Nass,et al.  Are Machines Gender Neutral? Gender‐Stereotypic Responses to Computers With Voices , 1997 .

[20]  C. Nass,et al.  Are People Polite to Computers? Responses to Computer-Based Interviewing Systems1 , 1999 .

[21]  J. Cassell,et al.  Embodied conversational agents , 2000 .

[22]  P. Devine.  Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. , 1989 .

[23]  D. Christopher Dryer,et al.  Getting Personal with Computers: How to Design Personalities for Agents , 1999, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[24]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Using a human face in an interface , 1994, CHI '94.

[25]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Cooperating with life-like interface agents , 1999 .

[26]  M. Couper.  A REVIEW OF ISSUES AND APPROACHES , 2000 .

[27]  W. Aquilino,et al.  EFFECTS OF INTERVIEW MODE ON SELF-REPORTED DRUG USE , 1990 .

[28]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[29]  S. M. Rogers,et al.  Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. , 1998, Science.

[30]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..