CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 360Social Robot Interaction and HRIInnovative Human-Technology InteractionAI in Service Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review: Trust-Building Factors and Implications for Conversational Agent Design

Open access
Rheu, Minjin, Shin, Ji Youn, Peng, Wei, Huh-Yoo, Jina·2021·International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1080/10447318.2020.1807710
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Minjin Rheua*, Ji Youn Shina, Wei Penga & Jina Huh-Yooba Media and Information, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USAb Department of Information Science, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAMinjin Rheu is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Media and Information at Michigan State University. Her research delves into how specific designs or features of communication technology influences users’ motivational and cognitive processes through which people change or adopt their health and prosocial behaviors.Ji Youn Shin is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Media and Information at Michigan State University. Her research includes human-computer interaction, human-centered design, and health communication. She designs and evaluates technologies for supporting individuals’ health and wellness in various health contexts, including family caregiving and pediatric chronic illnesses.Wei Peng is a Professor in the Department of Media and Information, Michigan State University. Her research focuses on the psychological and social mechanisms of behavior change and their application in the design of interactive media for health and wellness promotion.Jina Huh-Yoo is an Assistant Professor of Human-Computer Interaction at Drexel University's College of Computing & Informatics. Her research areas include human-computer interaction, health informatics, and research ethics of health informatics technologies. She was a PI of NIH and NSF-funded projects in promoting health and wellness through consumer-facing technologies.CONTACT Minjin Rheu rheuminj@msu.edu Media and Information, Michigan State University, 404 Wilson Rd, Room 414, East Lansing, MI 48823, USAABSTRACTOff-the-shelf conversational agents are permeating people’s everyday lives. In these artificial intelligence devices, trust plays a key role in users’ initial adoption and successful utilization. Factors enhancing trust toward conversational agents include appearances, voice features, and communication styles. Synthesizing such work will be useful in designing evidence-based, trustworthy conversational agents appropriate for various contexts. We conducted a systematic review of the experimental studies that investigated the effect of conversational agents’ and users’ characteristics on trust. From a full-text review of 29 articles, we identified five agent design-themes affecting trust toward conversational agents: social intelligence of the agent, voice characteristics and communication style, look of the agent, non-verbal communication, and performance quality. We also found that participants’ demographic, personality, or use context moderate the effect of these themes. We discuss implications for designing trustworthy conversational agents and responsibilities around on stereotypes and social norm building through agent design.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10447318.2020.1807710

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 83 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Allen T., 2010, Proceedings of AI-2008, the Twenty-Eighth SGAI International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 16
  2. Clark L., 2019, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings
  3. 10.1080/07370024.2004.9667343 · DOI
  4. 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Lee J. J., 2013, Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 893
  6. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 360

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rheu, M., Shin, J. Y., Peng, W., & Huh-Yoo, J.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Department of Information Science, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Corresponding author
Rheu, Minjin
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-09-02
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
81-96
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
DOI
10.1080/10447318.2020.1807710
OpenAlex
W3082818995
Semantic Scholar
824e392846e1b38787c39d8318d5f1e44e9a6c5b
Cited by
360
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
chatbots, trust, agent design, voice characteristics, communication styles, nonverbal communication, agent appearance, social intelligence, performance quality, user personality, demographic moderators, social norms, stereotypes, health communication, human-computer interaction

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