Comprehension and engagement in survey interviews with virtual agents

This study investigates how an onscreen virtual agent's dialog capability and facial animation affect survey respondents' comprehension and engagement in “face-to-face” interviews, using questions from US government surveys whose results have far-reaching impact on national policies. In the study, 73 laboratory participants were randomly assigned to respond in one of four interviewing conditions, in which the virtual agent had either high or low dialog capability (implemented through Wizard of Oz) and high or low facial animation, based on motion capture from a human interviewer. Respondents, whose faces were visible to the Wizard (and videorecorded) during the interviews, answered 12 questions about housing, employment, and purchases on the basis of fictional scenarios designed to allow measurement of comprehension accuracy, defined as the fit between responses and US government definitions. Respondents answered more accurately with the high-dialog-capability agents, requesting clarification more often particularly for ambiguous scenarios; and they generally treated the high-dialog-capability interviewers more socially, looking at the interviewer more and judging high-dialog-capability agents as more personal and less distant. Greater interviewer facial animation did not affect response accuracy, but it led to more displays of engagement—acknowledgments (verbal and visual) and smiles—and to the virtual interviewer's being rated as less natural. The pattern of results suggests that a virtual agent's dialog capability and facial animation differently affect survey respondents' experience of interviews, behavioral displays, and comprehension, and thus the accuracy of their responses. The pattern of results also suggests design considerations for building survey interviewing agents, which may differ depending on the kinds of survey questions (sensitive or not) that are asked.

[1]  Louise McNally,et al.  Semantics and pragmatics. , 2013, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

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

[3]  Patrick Gebhard,et al.  A Job Interview Simulation: Social Cue-Based Interaction with a Virtual Character , 2013, 2013 International Conference on Social Computing.

[4]  Thomas R. Ioerger,et al.  Precision and Disclosure in Text and Voice Interviews on Smartphones , 2015, PloS one.

[5]  M. Pfeifer Standardization And Tacit Knowledge Interaction And Practice In The Survey Interview , 2016 .

[6]  Jonathan E. Bloom The Speech IVR as a Survey Interviewing Methodology , 2007 .

[7]  Frederick G. Conrad,et al.  Misunderstanding Standardized Language in Research Interviews , 2004 .

[8]  F. Kreuter,et al.  Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity , 2008 .

[9]  B. Everitt,et al.  Talking About Statistics: A Psychologist's Guide to Data Analysis , 1992 .

[10]  David L. Vannette,et al.  Interviewer speech and the success of survey invitations , 2013 .

[11]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Render me real? , 2012, ACM Trans. Graph..

[12]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Pedagogical Agent Design: The Impact of Agent Realism, Gender, Ethnicity, and Instructional Role , 2004, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[13]  F. Eyssel,et al.  (S)he's Got the Look: Gender Stereotyping of Robots1 , 2012 .

[14]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Collaborating on contributions to conversations , 1987 .

[15]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  The Effect of Behavioral Realism and Form Realism of Real-Time Avatar Faces on Verbal Disclosure, Nonverbal Disclosure, Emotion Recognition, and Copresence in Dyadic Interaction , 2006, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[16]  H. Ishiguro,et al.  The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research , 2006 .

[17]  Mick P. Couper,et al.  Mobile Web Survey Design: Scrolling versus Paging, SMS versus E-mail Invitations , 2014 .

[18]  Li Gong,et al.  How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  V. Yngve On getting a word in edgewise , 1970 .

[20]  Lawrie S. McKay,et al.  Empirical evaluation of the uncanny valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion , 2014, Cognition.

[21]  R. Groves Three Eras of Survey Research , 2011 .

[22]  H. Ishiguro,et al.  Opening Pandora’s Box , 2020, Marriage Equality.

[23]  A. Kendon Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[24]  L. Suchman,et al.  Interactional Troubles in Face-to-Face Survey Interviews , 1990 .

[25]  Louis-Philippe Morency,et al.  It's only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[26]  Justine Cassell,et al.  Is it Self-Administration if the Computer Gives You Encouraging Looks? , 2007 .

[27]  P. Ekman,et al.  Facial action coding system: a technique for the measurement of facial movement , 1978 .

[28]  Frederick G. Conrad,et al.  Modeling Speech Disfluency to Predict Conceptual Misalignment in Speech Survey Interfaces , 2007 .

[29]  F. Conrad,et al.  Disfluencies and Gaze Aversion in Unreliable Responses to Survey Questions , 2012 .

[30]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  "It doesn't matter what you are!" Explaining social effects of agents and avatars , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[31]  Frederick G. Conrad,et al.  Survey Interviews and New Communication Technologies , 2007 .

[32]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  On the Semantics and Pragmatics of Linguistic Feedback , 1992, J. Semant..

[33]  Scott Keeter,et al.  Presidential Address: Survey Research, Its New Frontiers, and Democracy , 2012 .

[34]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Introduction New Challenges to Social Measurement , 2013 .

[35]  F. Conrad,et al.  Improving Social Measurement by Understanding Interaction in Survey Interviews , 2015 .

[36]  Svenja Adolphs,et al.  Linking the verbal and visual: new directions for corpus linguistics , 2008 .

[37]  Thomas M. Guterbock,et al.  RACE-OF-INTERVIEWER EFFECTS IN A PREELECTION POLL VIRGINIA 1989 , 1991 .

[38]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Embodied Conversational Agent-Based Kiosk for Automated Interviewing , 2011, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Zhe Wang,et al.  On the facilitative effects of face motion on face recognition and its development , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[40]  Jonas Beskow,et al.  Animated Lombard speech: Motion capture, facial animation and visual intelligibility of speech produced in adverse conditions , 2014, Comput. Speech Lang..

[41]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[42]  Frederick G. Conrad,et al.  Why do survey respondents disclose more when computers ask the questions , 2013 .

[43]  Matthew E. Ansfield,et al.  Smiling When Distressed: When a Smile Is a Frown Turned Upside Down , 2007, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[44]  S. Jamieson Likert scales: how to (ab)use them , 2004, Medical education.

[45]  Louis-Philippe Morency,et al.  It's only a computer: the impact of human-agent interaction in clinical interviews , 2014, AAMAS.

[46]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  What Are the Odds? A Practical Guide to Computing and Reporting Bayes Factors , 2014, J. Probl. Solving.

[47]  Anthony Steed,et al.  Lie tracking: social presence, truth and deception in avatar-mediated telecommunication , 2010, CHI.

[48]  G. Norman Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics , 2010, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[49]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Referring as a Collaborative Process , 2003 .

[50]  R. Darnell,et al.  Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire , 2006 .

[51]  Howard Schuman,et al.  WHITE RESPONDENTS AND RACE-OF-INTERVIEWER EFFECTS , 1975 .

[52]  Stacy Marsella,et al.  Virtual Rapport , 2006, IVA.

[53]  F. Eyssel,et al.  Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. , 2012, The British journal of social psychology.

[54]  F. J. Fowler,et al.  Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error. , 1989 .

[55]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  Michael Johnston,et al.  Spoken Dialog Systems for Automated Survey Interviewing , 2013, SIGDIAL Conference.

[57]  F. J. Fowler,et al.  Standardized Survey Interviewing , 1990 .

[58]  Frederick G. Conrad,et al.  Bringing Features of Human Dialogue to Web Surveys , 2007 .

[59]  Tom W. Smith,et al.  ASKING SENSITIVE QUESTIONS THE IMPACT OF DATA COLLECTION MODE, QUESTION FORMAT, AND QUESTION CONTEXT , 1996 .

[60]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Comparing Oral Interviewing with Self-Administered Computerized QuestionnairesAn Experiment , 2010 .

[61]  Jeffrey E. Cohen,et al.  Race-of-Interviewer Effects in Telephone Interviews , 1982 .

[62]  Evelyn Z. McClave Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech , 2000 .

[63]  K. Shadan,et al.  Available online: , 2012 .

[64]  A. Viera,et al.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. , 2005, Family medicine.

[65]  Video‐Mediated Interactions and Surveys , 2007 .

[66]  F. Conrad,et al.  Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey. , 2000, Public opinion quarterly.

[67]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation , 1994 .

[68]  Jessica K. Hodgins,et al.  Perceptual effects of damped and exaggerated facial motion in animated characters , 2013, 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG).

[69]  Kallirroi Georgila,et al.  SimSensei kiosk: a virtual human interviewer for healthcare decision support , 2014, AAMAS.

[70]  NunamakerJay,et al.  Embodied Conversational Agent-Based Kiosk for Automated Interviewing , 2011 .

[71]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  Smile and the world will smile with you - The effects of a virtual agent's smile on users' evaluation and behavior , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[72]  Frederick G. Conrad,et al.  HOW WEB SURVEYS DIFFER FROM OTHER KINDS OF USER INTERFACES , 2002 .

[73]  N. C. Schaeffer Conversation with a Purpose—or Conversation? Interaction in the Standardized Interview , 2011 .

[74]  Louis-Philippe Morency,et al.  Virtual Rapport 2.0 , 2011, IVA.

[75]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Quid Pro Quo? Reciprocal Self-disclosure and Communicative Accomodation towards a Virtual Interviewer , 2011, IVA.

[76]  Frederick G. Conrad,et al.  Does Conversational Interviewing Reduce Survey Measurement Error , 1997 .

[77]  F. Conrad,et al.  Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future , 2007 .