Comprehension and engagement in survey interviews with virtual agents

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue OCT, 2015, Pages

  Conrad, Frederick G ^a,b   Schober, Michael F ^c   Jans, Matt ^d   Orlowski, Rachel A ^a   Nielsen, Daniel ^e   Levenstein, Rachel ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f University of Chicago   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Dialog capability; Facial animation; Social signals; Survey interviewing; Virtual agent

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947287103     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01578     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Alexanderson, S., and Beskow, J. (2014). Animated Lombard speech: motion capture, facial animation and visual intelligibility of speech produced in adverse conditions. Comput. Speech Lang. 28, 607-618. doi: 10.1016/j.csl.2013.02.005
2. Allwood, J., Nivre, J., and Ahlsen, E. (1992). On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback. J. Semantics 9, 1-26. doi: 10.1093/jos/9.1.1
3. Anderson, A. H. (2008). "Video-mediated interactions and surveys". in Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future, eds Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 95-118. doi: 10.1002/9780470183373.ch5
4. Ansfield, M. E. (2007). Smiling when distressed: when a smile is a frown turned upside down. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33, 763-775. doi: 10.1177/0146167206297398
5. Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Merget, D., and Schroeder, R. (2006). 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. Presence 15, 359-372. doi: 10.1162/pres.15.4.359
6. Baur, T., Damian, I., Gebhard, P., Porayska-Pomsta, K., and André, E. (2013). "A job interview simulation: social cue-based interaction with a virtual character". in 2013 International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) (Alexandria, VA: IEEE), 220-227. doi: 10.1109/SocialCom.2013.39
7. Baylor, A. L., and Kim, Y. (2004). "Pedagogical agent design: the impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role". in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3220 (Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer), 592-603. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30139-4_56
8. Bloom, J. (2008). "The speech IVR as a survey interviewing methodology". in Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future, eds Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 119-136. doi: 10.1002/9780470183373.ch6
9. Carter, R., and Adolphs, S. (2008). Linking the verbal and visual: new directions for corpus linguistics. Lang. Comput. 64, 275-291. doi: 10.1163/9789401205474_019
10. Cassell, J., and Miller, P. (2008). "Is it self-administration if the computer gives you encouraging looks?" in Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future, eds Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons), 161-178.
11. Chang, L., and Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered computerized questionnaires: an experiment. Public Opin. Q. 74, 154-167. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp090
12. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
13. Clark, H. H., and Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Lang. Cogn. Process. 2, 19-41. doi: 10.1080/01690968708406350
14. Clark, H. H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1-39. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
15. Conrad, F. G., Broome, J. S., Benkí, J. R., Kreuter, F., Groves, R. M., Vannette, D., et al. (2013). Interviewer speech and the success of survey invitations. J. R. Stat. Soc. 176, 191-210. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01064.x
16. Conrad, F. G., and Schober, M. F. (2000). Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey. Public Opin. Q. 64, 1-28. doi: 10.1086/316757
17. Conrad, F. G., and Schober, M. F. (eds.). (2008). Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future, Vol. 542 (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons). doi: 10.1002/9780470183373
18. Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F., and Coiner, T. (2007). Bringing features of dialogue to web surveys. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 21, 165-187. doi: 10.1002/acp.1335
19. Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F., and Nielsen, D. (2011). "Race-of-virtual-interviewer effects". in The 66th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (Phoenix, AZ).
20. Cotter, P. R., Cohen, J., and Coulter, P. B. (1982). Race-of-interviewer effects in telephone interviews. Public Opin. Q. 46, 278-284. doi: 10.1086/268719
21. DeVault, D., Artstein, R., Benn, G., Dey, T., Fast, E., Gainer, A., et al. (2014). "SimSensei Kiosk: a virtual human interviewer for healthcare decision support". in Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (Paris: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems), 1061-1068.
22. Ehlen, P., Schober, M. F., and Conrad, F. G. (2007). Modeling speech disfluency to predict conceptual misalignment in speech survey interfaces. Discourse Process. 44, 245-265. doi: 10.1080/01638530701600839
23. Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
24. Everitt, B. S., and Haye, D. F. (1992). Talking About Statistics: A Psychologist's Guide to Data Analysis. New York, NY: Halsted Press.
25. Eyssel, F., and Hegel, F. (2012). (S)he's got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 2213-2230. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x
26. Eyssel, F., and Kuchenbrandt, D. (2012). Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 724-731. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02082.x
27. Ferrin, M., and Kriesi, H. (2014). Europeans' Understandings and Evaluations of Democracy: Topline Results from Round 6 of the European Social Survey. ESS Topline Results Series, (4). Available online at: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/permalink/800ea36f-3a8d-11e4-95d4-005056b8065f.pdf
28. Finkel, S. E., Guterbock, T. M., and Borg, M. J. (1991). Race-of-interviewer effects in a preelection poll Virginia 1989. Public Opin. Q. 55, 313-330. doi: 10.1086/269264
29. Foucault Welles, B., and Miller, P. V. (2013). "Nonverbal correlates of survey rapport: an analysis of interviewer behavior". in The Cannell Workshop at the 2013 Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) (Boston, MA).
30. Fowler, F. J., and Mangione, T. W. (1990). Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
31. Geoghegan-Quinn, M. (2012). Opening Address to the ESS International Conference-'CrossNational Evidence from European Social Survey: Exploring Public Attitudes, Informing Public Policy in Europe', Nicosia. Available online at: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS1_5_select_findings.pdf [Accessed Nov 23, 2012].
32. Gong, L. (2008). How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 1494-1509. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.007
33. Gratch, J., Lucas, G. M., King, A. A., and Morency, L. P. (2014). "It's only a computer: the impact of human-agent interaction in clinical interviews". in Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (New York, NY: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems), 85-92.
34. Gratch, J., Okhmatovskaia, A., Lamothe, F., Marsella, S., Morales, M., van der Werf, R. J., et al. (2006). "Virtual rapport". in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA 2006), eds Gratch, J., Young, M., Aylett, R., Ballin, D., Olivier, P. (Marina del Rey, CA: Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), 14-27. doi: 10.1007/11821830_2
35. Groves, R. M. (2011). Three eras of survey research. Public Opin. Q. 75, 861-871. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr057
36. Hatchett, S., and Schuman, H. (1975). White respondents and race-of-interviewer effects. Public Opin. Q. 39, 523-528. doi: 10.1086/268249
37. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489457
38. Huang, L., Morency, L. P., and Gratch, J. (2011). "Virtual rapport 2.0". in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA 2011), eds Högni Vilhjálmsson, H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S., Thórisson, K. R. (Marina del Rey, CA: Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), 68-79.
39. Hyde, J., Carter, E. J., Kiesler, S., and Hodgins, J. K. (2013). "Perceptual effects of damped and exaggerated facial motion in animated characters". in 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG13) (Shanghai: IEEE). doi: 10.1109/FG.2013.6553775
40. Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med. Educ. 38, 1217-1218. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
41. Jarosz, A. F., and Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes Factors. J. Probl. Solving 7, 2. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1167
42. JASP. (2015). Available online at: http://jasp-stats.org/
43. Johnston, M., Ehlen, P., Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F., Antoun, C., Fail, S., et al. (2013). "Spoken dialog systems for automated survey interviewing". in Proceedings of the 14th Annual SIGDIAL Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL 2013) (Metz), 329-333.
44. Keeter, S. (2012). Presidential address: survey research, its new frontiers, and democracy. Public Opin. Q. 76, 600-608. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs044
45. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychol. 26, 22-63. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4
46. Krämer, N., Kopp, S., Becker-Asano, C., and Sommer, N. (2013). Smile and the world will smile with you-The effects of a virtual agent's smile on users' evaluation and behavior. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 71, 335-349. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.006
47. Kreuter, F., Presser, S., and Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and Web surveys: the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opin. Q. 72, 847-865. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn063
48. Lind, L. H., Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., and Reichert, H. (2013). Why do survey respondents disclose more when computers ask the questions? Public Opin. Q. 77, 888-935. doi: 10.1093/poq/nft038
49. Lucas, G. M., Gratch, J., King, A., and Morency, L. P. (2014). It's only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Comput. Hum. Behav. 37, 94-100. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043
50. MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C.-C., and Koch, C. T. (2009). Too real for comfort: uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25, 695-710. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.026
51. MacDorman, K. F., and Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in social and cognitive science research. Interact. Stud. 7, 297-337. doi: 10.1075/is.7.3.03mac
52. Massey, D. S., and Tourangeau, R. (2013). Introduction: new challenges to social measurement. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 645, 6-22. doi: 10.1177/0002716212463314
53. Mavletova, A., and Couper, M. P. (2014). Mobile web survey design: scrolling versus paging, SMS versus email invitations. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 2, 498-518. doi: 10.1093/jssam/smu015
54. McClave, E. Z. (2000). Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. J. Pragmat. 37, 855-878. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00079-X
55. McDonnell, R., Breidt, M., and Bülthoff, H. H. (2012). Render me real? Investigating the effect of render style on the perception of animated virtual humans. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 91. doi: 10.1145/2185520.2185587
56. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 15, 625-632. doi: 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
57. Nunamaker, J. F., Derrick, D. C., Elkins, A. C., Burgoon, J. K., and Patton, M. W. (2011). Embodied conversational agent-based kiosk for automated interviewing. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 28, 17-48. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222280102
58. Peytchev, A. (2009). Survey breakoff. Public Opin. Q. 73, 74-97. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp014
59. Piwek, L., McKay, L. S., and Pollick, F. E. (2014). Empirical evaluation of the uncanny valley hypothesis fails to confirm the predicted effect of motion. Cognition 130, 271-277. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.001
60. Schaeffer, N. C. (1991). "Conversation with a purpose-or conversation? Interaction in the standardized interview". in Survey Measurement and Process Quality, eds Biemer, P. P., Groves, R. M., Lyberg, L. E., Mathiowetz, N. A., Sudman, S. (New York, NY: John Wiley), 367-391.
61. Schober, M. F., and Conrad, F. G. (1997). Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public Opin. Q. 61, 576-602.
62. Schober, M. F., and Conrad, F. G. (2002). "A collaborative view of standardized survey interviews". in Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, eds Maynard, D., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., Schaeffer, N. C., van der Zouwen, J. (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons), 67-94.
63. Schober, M. F., and Conrad, F. G. (2008). "Survey interviews and new communication technologies". in Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future, eds Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons), 1-30. doi: 10.1002/9780470183373.ch1
64. Schober, M. F., and Conrad, F. G. (2015). Improving social measurement by understanding interaction in survey interviews. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 2, 211-219. doi: 10.1177/2372732215601112
65. Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., Antoun, C., Ehlen, P., Fail, S., Hupp, A. L., et al. (2015). Precision and disclosure in text and voice interviews on smartphones. PLoS ONE 10:e0128337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128337
66. Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., Dijkstra, W., and Ongena, Y. P. (2012). Disfluencies and gaze aversion in unreliable responses to survey questions. J. Off. Stat. 28, 555-582. Available online at: http://www.jos.nu/Articles/abstract.asp?article=284555
67. Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., Ehlen, P., and Fricker, S. S. (2003). "How web surveys differ from other kinds of user interfaces". in Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods (Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association). Available online at: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2003/files/jsm2003-000336.pdf
68. Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., and Fricker, S. S. (2004). Misunderstanding standardized language in research interviews. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 18, 169-188. doi: 10.1002/acp.955
69. Steptoe, W., Steed, A., Rovira, A., and Rae, J. (2010). "Lie tracking: social presence, truth and deception in avatar-mediated telecommunication". in CHI'10: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC), 1039-1048.
70. Suchman, L., and Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 85, 232-253. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1990.10475331
71. Suessbrick, A. L., Schober, M. F., and Conrad, F. G. (2000). "Different respondents interpret ordinary questions quite differently". in Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods (Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association). Available online at: https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/papers/2000_155.pdf
72. Tourangeau, R., and Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin. Q. 60, 275-304. doi: 10.1086/297751
73. Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H., and Sonenstein, F. L. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 280, 867-873. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5365.867
74. US Bureau of the Census and US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1993). Point of Purchase Survey 1993: Checklist A: Five-Year to One-Week Recall, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
75. Viera, A. J., and Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam. Med. 37, 360-363. Available online at: http://www.stfm.org/FamilyMedicine/Vol37Issue5/Viera360
76. von der Pütten, A., Hoffmann, L., Klatt, J., and Krämer, N. C. (2011). "Quid pro quo? Reciprocal self-disclosure and communicative accommodation towards a virtual interviewer". in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA 2011), eds Högni Vilhjálmsson, H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S., Thórisson, K. R. (Marina del Rey, CA: Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), 183-194.
77. von der Pütten, A. M., Krämer, N. C., Gratch, J., and Kang, S. H. (2010). "It doesn't matter what you are!" Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 1641-1650. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.012
78. Xiao, N. G., Perrotta, S., Quinn, P. C., Wang, Z., Sun, Y. H. P., and Lee, K. (2014). On the facilitative effects of face motion on face recognition and its development. Front. Psychol. 5:633. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00633
79. Yngve, V. (1970). "On getting a word in edgewise". in Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society).