Cited by 155Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

The influence of conversational agent embodiment and conversational relevance on socially desirable responding

Open access
Schuetzler, Ryan M., Giboney, Justin Scott, Grimes, G. Mark, Nunamaker, Jay F.·2018·Decision Support Systems

Abstract

Conversational agents (CAs) are becoming an increasingly common component in a wide range of information systems. A great deal of research to date has focused on enhancing traits that make CAs more humanlike. However, few studies have examined the influence such traits have on information disclosure. This research builds on self-disclosure, social desirability, and social presence theories to explain how CA anthropomorphism affects disclosure of personally sensitive information. Taken together, these theories suggest that as CAs become more humanlike, the social desirability of user responses will increase. In this study, we use a laboratory experiment to examine the influence of two elements of CA design—conversational relevance and embodiment—on the answers people give in response to sensitive and non-sensitive questions. We compare the responses given to various CAs to those given in a face-to-face interview and an online survey. The results show that for sensitive questions, CAs with better conversational abilities elicit more socially desirable responses from participants, with a less significant effect found for embodiment. These results suggest that for applications where eliciting honest answers to sensitive questions is important, CAs that are “better” in terms of humanlike realism may not be better for eliciting truthful responses to sensitive questions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dss.2018.08.011

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schuetzler, R. M., Giboney, J. S., Grimes, G. M., & Nunamaker, J. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
  • Brigham Young University (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Schuetzler, Ryan M.
Venue
Decision Support Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
114
Pages
94-102
ISSN
0167-9236 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2889547446
Cited by
154
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4
FWCI
10.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Decision Support Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DigitalCommons@UNO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1068026)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
chatbots, embodiment, social desirability bias, self-disclosure, social presence, anthropomorphism, sensitive questions, information disclosure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review