The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 425 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
How Should My Chatbot Interact? A Survey on Social Characteristics in Human–Chatbot Interaction Design
Open accessAbstract
Chatbots’ growing popularity has brought new challenges to HCI, having changed the patterns of human interactions with computers. The increasing need to approximate conversational interaction styles raises expectations for chatbots to present social behaviors that are habitual in human–human communication. In this survey, we argue that chatbots should be enriched with social characteristics that cohere with users’ expectations, ultimately avoiding frustration and dissatisfaction. We bring together the literature on disembodied, text-based chatbots to derive a conceptual model of social characteristics for chatbots. We analyzed 56 papers from various domains to understand how social characteristics can benefit human–chatbot interactions and identify the challenges and strategies to designing them. Additionally, we discussed how characteristics may influence one another. Our results provide relevant opportunities to both researchers and designers to advance human–chatbot interactions.
Checked 2026-10-09 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This survey analyzes 56 studies on disembodied, text-based chatbots to derive a conceptual model of 11 social characteristics grouped into conversational intelligence, social intelligence, and personification. It maps reported benefits, challenges, and strategies for each characteristic and proposes 22 interrelationship propositions to guide chatbot design and future research.
Key findings
- The review derived 11 social characteristics: proactivity (18 studies), conscientiousness (11), communicability (6), damage control (12), thoroughness (13), manners (10), moral agency (6), emotional intelligence (14), personalization (11), identity (16), and personality (12).
- These characteristics are grouped into three categories: conversational intelligence, social intelligence, and personification; the paper reports benefits such as increasing human-likeness, believability, engagement, and interpersonal relationships, alongside challenges such as timing, privacy, emotional regulation, and stereotyping.
- The survey states 22 propositions about how characteristics influence one another, e.g., proactivity influences perceived personality and conscientiousness, and identity influences moral agency.
- Most surveyed papers focus on task-oriented chatbots (59%), while general-purpose chatbots account for 33%; education is the most representative specific domain with 9 papers, followed by customer services with 5 papers.
Methods
- Literature survey using Google Scholar with a search string covering synonyms such as chatbots, chatterbots, conversational agents, conversational interfaces, dialogue systems, and digital assistants; studies on embodiment, speech input, social bots, and personal assistants were excluded.
- Screening started with about one thousand papers, reduced to 464, then 104, and finally 56 studies after title, abstract, and full-text review; the dataset of included and excluded studies is available in Chaves and Gerosa (2019).
- Analysis used a qualitative coding process inspired by Grounded Theory: one researcher selected relevant statements and labeled them as characteristics, a second researcher reviewed the set, and both discussed merging, renaming, or removing characteristics; quotes were then labeled as benefits, challenges, or strategies.
Limitations
- The paper states it focused on disembodied, text-based chatbots, excluding embodied and speech-based conversational agents, which may underrepresent domains such as Ambient Intelligence and Software Engineering.
- The paper states the definition of chatbot is not consolidated, so some studies with relevant social aspects may not have been found despite using several synonyms and Google Scholar.
- The paper states the conceptual model was derived through qualitative coding and relies on researchers’ subjective assessment, mitigated by in-person consensus discussions; it also notes that most surveyed results are exploratory and that strategies for moral agency and thoroughness were not identified.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
308 Not checked yet · 46 Own interpretation · 44 Own result · 28 Own method · 28 No basis given
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“among them, 18 studies analyze logs of conversations or users' perceptions of third-party chatbots such as Cleverbot (e.g., Corti and Gillespie (2016)), Talkbot (e.g., Brahnam and De Angeli (2012)), and Woebot K. K. Fitzpatrick et al. (2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corti and Gillespie (2016)
- Not checked yetcites Brahnam and De Angeli (2012)
- Not checked yetcites K. K. Fitzpatrick et al. (2017)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From our analysis of 56 scientific studies, we derive a conceptual model of social characteristics, aiming to help researchers and designers identify the subset of characteristics that are relevant to their context and how adopting-or neglecting-a particular characteristic may influence the way humans perceive the chatbots.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: A lack of studies brings together the social characteristics that influence the way users perceive and behave toward chatbots.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most papers (59%) focus on task-oriented chatbots.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this survey, we found 18 papers that report either chatbots with proactive behavior or implications of manifesting a proactive behavior.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proactivity was mostly investigated in open domain and education chatbots (four studies each).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the studies rely on data that comes from the log of the conversations, interviews, and questionnaires.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proactivity was also observed in eight other task-oriented domains, including task management and information searches as can be observed in the supplementary materials.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Research in open domain chatbots has reported most of the social characteristics, except for Communicability .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Proactivity (also addressed as ' intervention mode ') was explicitly addressed in seven studies (Avula et al., 2018; Chaves & Gerosa, 2018; Dyke et al., 2013; Hayashi, 2015; V. Q. Liao et al., 2016; Schuetzler et al., 2018; Tegos et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Avula et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Chaves & Gerosa, 2018
- Not checked yetcites Dyke et al., 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eleven characteristics found in the literature were grouped into three main categories, depending on whether the social characteristic relates to the chatbot's conversational behavior, social protocols, or virtual representation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 213
- It may state two separate claims as one. 108
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most representative specific domain is education, with 9 papers, followed by customer services, with 5 papers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most surveyed studies adopted real chatbots (35 out of 56);”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the selected studies are recent publications (less than 10 years old).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We stated 22 propositions about how social characteristics may influence one another.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“General purpose chatbots reflect 33% of the surveyed studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The publication venues include the domains of human-computer interactions (25 papers), learning and education (8 papers), information and interactive systems (8 papers), virtual agents (5 papers), artificial intelligence (3 papers), and natural language processing (2 papers).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most general purpose chatbots (16 out of 19) are designed to handle topic-unrestricted conversations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only five studies applied only quantitative methods, while seven focused on qualitative methods.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Social intelligence focuses on habitual social protocols, while personification refers to the chatbot's perceived identity and personality representations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Social intelligence focuses on habitual social protocols, while personification refers to the chatbot's perceived identity and personality representations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The questionnaires are mostly Likert-scales, and some of them include subjective feedback.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this section, we discuss social characteristics related to conversational intelligence , namely: proactivity (18 studies), conscientiousness (11 studies), and communicability (6 studies).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In most of the studies, however, proactivity emerged either as an exploratory result, mostly from post-intervention interviews and user's feedback (Duijvelshoff, 2017; Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018; Morrissey & Kirakowski, 2013; Portela & Granell-Canut, 2017; Shum et al., 2018; Thies et al., 2017), or as a strategy to attend to domain-specific requirements (e.g., monitoring, and guidance) (K. K. Fitzp”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijvelshoff, 2017
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Morrissey & Kirakowski, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For each characteristic, we point out the benefits, challenges, and strategies of implementing the characteristic in chatbots as reported in the literature.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In he task-oriented domains, some characteristics are largely influenced by the topic (e.g., Moral agency and Personality ), while others are more generally applied (e.g., Manners and Damage control ).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a chatbot was simulated (11 studies), Wizard of Oz (WoZ) is the most used technique (9 studies).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eight studies do not address a particular chatbot.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most studies analyzed the interaction with real chatbots, although Wizard of Oz (WoZ) settings are also common.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Only two papers did not evaluate a particular type of interaction because they were based on a literature review (Gnewuch et al., 2017) and surveys with chatbot users in general (Brandtzaeg & Følstad, 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Brandtzaeg & Følstad, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nine studies introduce a selfdeveloped architecture and/or dialogue management (e.g. Dohsaka, Asai, Higashinaka, Minami, and Maeda (2014); Kumar, Ai, Beuth, and Ros´ e (2010)).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dohsaka et al. (2014)
- Not checked yetcites Kumar et al. (2010)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of the studies (15) applied mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In another nine studies, the chatbots were designed for research purposes using third-party platforms for chatbot development and deployment, such as IBM's Watson service (e.g., Q. V. Liao et al. (2018)) and Microsoft's Bot Framework (Toxtli et al., 2018) as well as patternmatching packages such as Artificial Intelligence Markup Language (AIML) (Silvervarg & J¨ onsson, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Q. V. Liao et al. (2018)
- Not checked yetcites Toxtli et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Silvervarg & Jönsson, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Table 1 depicts, the category conversational intelligence includes characteristics that help the chatbot manage interactions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We derived a total of 11 social characteristics, and grouped them into three categories, as depicted in Table 1: conversational intelligence , social intelligence , and personification .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the supplementary materials also highlight five constructs that can be used to assess whether social characteristics reach the intended design goals.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also grouped the social characteristics based on the domain in which they were investigated (Table 2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not identify studies on open domain chatbots that report on communicability , since in open domain interactions users are free to talk about varying topics and guidance is less a concern.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“16 studies reported both qualitative and quantitative results.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding the adopted research methods, 12 studies applied qualitative methods and 10 focuses on quantitative methods.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Damage control was mostly investigated for open domain (two studies) and customer service chatbots (three studies).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Only three papers highlighted emotional intelligence as an exploratory outcome (Jenkins et al., 2007; Thies et al., 2017; Zamora, 2017), where needs for emotional intelligence emerged from participants' subjective feedback and post-intervention surveys.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jenkins et al., 2007
- Not checked yetcites Thies et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Zamora, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature shows that emotional intelligence is widely investigated, with particular interest from education and mental health care domains.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, chatbots may have anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, or robotic representations.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the social intelligence category includes characteristics that help a chatbot to manifest an adequate social behavior, by managing conflicts, using appropriate language, displaying manners and moral agency , sharing emotions, and handling personalized interactions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We found 16 studies that discuss identity issues, ten of which include identity as part of their main investigation (Araujo, 2018; Candello et al., 2017; Ciechanowski et al., 2018; Corti & Gillespie, 2016; De Angeli & Brahnam, 2006; De Angeli, Johnson, & Coventry, 2001; Jenkins et al., 2007; Q. V. Liao et al., 2018; Marino, 2014; Schlesinger et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Araujo, 2018
- Not checked yetcites Candello et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Ciechanowski et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Six studies applied quantitative methods, whereas the majority reported qualitative (10) or mixed (11) methods.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other domains include race-talk, education, and gaming.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In two studies, the authors argue for the impact of identity on the interaction based on the literature (Brandtzaeg & Følstad, 2018; Gnewuch et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brandtzaeg & Følstad, 2018
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Some authors include identity aspects in the definition of personality (see, e.g., Shum et al. (2018)).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shum et al. (2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The benefits relate to resolving social positioning and recovering from failures, as well as increasing believability, human-likeness, engagement, and rapport.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this category, we found several studies where part of the main investigation relates to the social characteristics.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Aspects that convey the chatbots' identity include gender, age, language style, and name.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this section, we divided the social characteristics that reflect personification into identity (16 papers) and personality (12 papers).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We showed that some characteristics are largely influenced by the domain (e.g., moral agency and communicability ), while others are more generally applied (e.g., manners and damage control ).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Noticeably, personalization mostly co-occurs with proactivity, since users expects proactive messages to be relevant to their particular interactional context.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was reported only in race-talk, and open domain.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We decided to not include terms that relate to social characteristics/traits, because most studies do not explicitly label their results as such.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Most studies do not explicitly label their results as social characteristics/traits.
In the paper
“Neururer and colleagues (2018) state that making a conversational agent acceptable to users is primarily a social, not only technical, problem.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Neururer et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Chatbots are changing the patterns of interactions between humans and computers (Følstad & Brandtzæg, 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Følstad & Brandtzæg, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not include 'personal assistants' either, since this term consistently refers to commercially available, voice-based assistants such as Google Assistant, Amazon's Alexa, Apple's Siri, and Microsoft's Cortana.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, most studies focus on a single or small set of characteristics (e.g., Mairesse and Walker (2009); Schlesinger, O'Hara, and Taylor (2018)); in other studies, the social characteristics emerged as secondary, exploratory results (e.g., Tallyn, Fried, Gianni, Isard, and Speed (2018); Toxtli, Cranshaw, et al. (2018)).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mairesse and Walker (2009)
- Not checked yetcites Schlesinger, O'Hara, and Taylor (2018)
- Not checked yetcites Tallyn et al. (2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It has become difficult to find evidence regarding what characteristics are important for designing a particular chatbot, and what research opportunities exist in the field.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“to find relevant studies we used a search string that includes the synonyms 'chatbots, chatterbots, conversational agents, conversational interfaces, conversational systems, conversation systems, dialogue systems, digital assistants, intelligent assistants, conversational user interfaces, and conversational UI' .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The literature presents no coherent definition of chatbots.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After reading the full texts, we removed the papers that either did not highlight social characteristics or represented previous, ongoing research of another complete study from the same authors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After filtering the search results, we had 56 remaining studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The datasets with all analyzed studies (original list of results and exclusions per round) is available in Chaves and Gerosa (2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chaves and Gerosa (2019)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We started with a set of about one thousand papers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, designing overly humanized agents results in uncanny feelings and increased expectations (Ciechanowski, Przegalinska, Magnuski, & Gloor, 2018; Gnewuch et al., 2017), which also negatively impacts the interaction.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ciechanowski, Przegalinska, Magnuski, & Gloor, 2018
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The search string did not include the term 'social bots', because it refers to chatbots that produce content for social networks such as Twitter (Ferrara, Varol, Davis, Menczer, & Flammini, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ferrara, Varol, Davis, Menczer, & Flammini, 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As chatbots are designed to interact with users in a way that mimics person-to-person conversations, new challenges in HCI arise (Følstad & Brandtzæg, 2017; Nguyen & Sidorova, 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Følstad & Brandtzæg, 2017
- Not checked yetcites Nguyen & Sidorova, 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, to find studies from a variety of domains (not only computing), we used Google Scholar to search for papers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We started the second round with 464 studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this round, we excluded short/position papers, theses, book chapters, and documents published in non-scientific venues.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third and last round started with 104 papers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We explicitly left out studies that relate to embodiment ( 'ECA, multimodal, robots, eye-gaze, gesture' ), and speech input mode ( 'speech-based, speech-recognition, voice-based' ).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also removed papers for which full text was not available or written in a language other than English.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the first round, we reduced this amount by about half based on the titles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this survey, we argue that chatbots should be enriched with social characteristics that cohere with users' expectations, ultimately avoiding frustration and dissatisfaction.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The increasing need to approximate conversational interaction styles raises users' expectations that chatbots present social behaviors habitual in human-human communication.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also read the abstracts and removed all the papers that focused on technical aspects, rather than social ones.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After coding all the studies, a second researcher (the second author) reviewed the produced set of characteristics and both researchers participated in discussion sessions to identify characteristics that could be merged, renamed, or removed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the end, the characteristics were grouped into the categories, depending on whether the characteristic relates to the chatbot's virtual representation, conversational behavior, or social protocols.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“proactively suggesting and encouraging new topics have been shown useful to both inspire users (Avula et al., 2018; Chaves & Gerosa, 2018) and keep the conversation alive (Silvervarg & J¨ onsson, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Avula et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Chaves & Gerosa, 2018
- Not checked yetcites Silvervarg & J¨ onsson, 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We analyzed the papers by searching for chatbot behavior or attributed characteristics that influence the way users perceive it and behave toward it.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These steps were performed by one researcher (the first author).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the quotes for each characteristic were labeled as references to benefits, challenges, or strategies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For each study ( document ), we selected relevant statements from the paper ( quotes ) and labeled them as a characteristic ( code ).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In human-chatbot conversations, a proactive behavior enables a chatbot to share initiative with the user, contributing to the conversation in a more natural way (Morrissey & Kirakowski, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morrissey & Kirakowski, 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The authors found that, for complex tasks, to keep the conversation on track the user must be aware of the next steps or why something is happening.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijst, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“based on the literature on customer support chatbots, Gnewuch et al. (2017) argue that comfortably conversing on any topic related to the service offering is a requirement for task-oriented chatbots.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in taskoriented interactions, a chatbot should understand the purpose of the interaction and strive to conduct the conversation toward this goal in an efficient, productive way (Ayedoun et al., 2017; Duijst, 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ayedoun et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Duijst, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Coniam (2008) reviewed popular chatbots for practicing second languages. The author showed that most chatbots in this field cannot hold continuous conversations, since they are developed to answer the user's last input. Therefore, they did not have the sense of topic, which resulted in instances of inappropriate response.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Coniam, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When evaluating the naturalness of a chatbot, Morrissey and Kirakowski (2013) found that maintaining a theme is convincing, while failure to do so is unconvincing.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morrissey & Kirakowski, 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Brandtzaeg and Følstad (2017) show that productivity is the key motivating factor for using chatbots (68% of the participants mentioned it as the main reason for using chatbots).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brandtzaeg & Følstad, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the chatbot's attentiveness to the interactional goal may not be evident to the user if the chatbot passively waits for the user to control the interaction. Thus, conscientiousness relates to proactive ability, as discussed in Section 3.1.1.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“as the complexity of tasks increases, more turns are required to achieve a goal; hence, more mistakes may be made. This argument was supported by both Duijst (2017) and Dyke et al. (2013)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijst, 2017
- Not checked yetcites Dyke et al., 2013
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It enables a chatbot to follow the conversational flow, show understanding of the context, and interpret each utterance as a meaningful part of the whole conversation (Morrissey & Kirakowski, 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morrissey & Kirakowski, 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a conversation with a chatbot should maintain a ' sense of continuity over time ' (Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018) to demonstrate that the chatbot is exerting effort to track the conversation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contextualized proactive interventions also suggest that the chatbot should be attentive to the conversation, which conveys conscientiousness , as discussed in the next section.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Privacy concerns may result in under-motivated users, discomfort about disclosing information, and lack of engagement (Duijvelshoff, 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijvelshoff, 2017
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As shown by Duijst (2017), when a chatbot does not interpret the meaning of users' utterances, users show frustration and the chatbot's credibility is compromised.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijst, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“aiming to ensure the conversational structureand to hide natural language limitations-chatbots are designed to restrict free-text inputs from the user (Duijst, 2017; Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018; Tallyn et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijst, 2017
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Tallyn et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In both cases, the user and chatbot should be on the same page about the chatbot's contextual state (Jain, Kota, et al., 2018), providing the users the opportunity to clarify possible misunderstandings (Gnewuch et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kota, et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a chatbot should provide a way to inform the user of the current context, especially for complex tasks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kota, et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“One surveyed paper (Portela & Granell-Canut, 2017) proposes a chatbot that [S2] selects a topic randomly but also observes that the lack of context is a major problem of this approach.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Portela & Granell-Canut, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Chatbots should be able to respond to social cues during the conversation, accept differences, and manage conflicts (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) as well as be empathic and demonstrate caring (Bj¨ orkqvist et al., 2000)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Salovey & Mayer, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Björkqvist et al., 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Providing communicability helps users to interpret the codes used by designers to convey the interactional possibilities embedded in the software (De Souza, Prates, & Barbosa, 1999), which improves system learnability (Grossman, Fitzmaurice, & Attar, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Souza et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Grossman et al., 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“when the chatbot is not able to answer the user, or when it notices that the user is silent, it may suggest available features to stimulate the user to engage (Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018; Val´ erio et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Val´ erio et al., 2017
hedgedconditionaln = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The problema around chatbots' communicability lies in the nature of the interface: instead of buttons, menus, and links, chatbots unveil their capabilities through conversational turns, one sentence at a time (Val´ erio et al., 2017)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Val´ erio et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“while interacting with chatbots, users may not know that a desired functionality is available or how to use it (Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018; Val´ erio et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Val´ erio et al., 2017
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The literature on interactive systems has highlighted system learnability as the most fundamental component for usability (Grossman et al., 2009)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grossman et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“chatbots should recognize a 'help' input from the user, so it can provide instructions on how to proceed (Val´ erio et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Val´ erio et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Gnewuch et al. (2017) argue that the workflow should be flexible enough to handle both multi-turn and one-turn question-answer interactions; it also should be unambiguous, such that users can efficiently achieve their goals.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Interactive software is communicative by its nature, since users achieve their goals by exchanging messages with the system (Prates, de Souza, & Barbosa, 2000; Sundar, Bellur, Oh, Jia, & Kim, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Prates et al., 2000
- Not checked yetcites Sundar et al., 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“communicating chatbots' functionalities should be performed as much as possible within the chat interface (Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
plainn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Hence, when developing chatbots, it is necessary to account for the socially acceptable protocols for conversational interactions (Walker, 2009; Wallis & Norling, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Walker, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“results from (Q. V. Liao et al., 2018) show that chatbots should be able to answer ability-check questions (e.g., ' what can you do? ' or ' can you do [functionality]? ').”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Q. V. Liao et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This inconsistency produces the user's feeling of misinterpreting the affordances, which has a negative impact on the system's learnability.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Val´ erio et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, when the chatbots are built into third-party apps (e.g., Facebook Messenger), an extra window may not be possible.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“which ultimately increase chatbots' authenticity (Neururer et al., 2018)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Neururer et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The authors argue that providing an opening message with insights into the chatbots' capabilities is a requirement for chatbots design.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“designing a conversational blueprint helps to conduct the conversation strictly and productively to the goal (Duijst, 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijst, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to Gnewuch et al. (2017), business integration is a requirement for designing chatbots, so that the chatbot can solve the users' requests without transferring the interaction to another user interface.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Communicability may also be used as a strategy to avoid mistakes ( damage control )”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“First-time users in Jain, Kumar, et al. (2018) highlighted that a clarification about the chatbots' purpose should be placed in the introductory message.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Jain, Kumar, et al. (2018) observed that when first-time users do not understand chatbots' capabilities and limitations, they have high expectations and, consequently, end up more frustrated when the chatbots fail.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, most of the results are exploratory; a lack of studies investigate the extent to which the provided strategies influence users' behaviors and perceptions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an easy-to-learn system should lead the user to perform well, even during their initial interactions”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to the authors, ability-check questions helped users to understand the system and reduce uncertainty (Q. V. Liao et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Q. V. Liao et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the HCI domain, the Media Equation theory (Reeves & Nass, 1996) posits that people react to computers as social actors.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reeves & Nass, 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“dialogue-reference errors (e.g., user's attempt to correct a previous answer or jumping back to an earlier question) are one of the major reasons for failed dialogues and they mostly result from chatbots' misunderstandings”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mäurer & Weihe, 2015
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“chatbots often fail in a conversation due to lack of either linguistic or world knowledge (Wallis & Norling, 2005)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, it is necessary to enrich chatbots with the ability to recover from failures and handle inappropriate talk in a socially acceptable manner (Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018; Silvervarg & J¨ onsson, 2013; Wallis & Norling, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Silvervarg & Jönsson, 2013
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[B2] to deal with testing”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In open domain interactions, users are free to wander among topics and testing or flaming tends to be more frequent (Hill et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hill et al., 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Qualitative evaluation reveals that the longer the conversations last, the more users are encouraged to go beyond the chatbots main functions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lasek & Jessa, 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the chatbot failed to answer 10% of the exchanged messages”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Toxtli et al., 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“users who want to test and find the system's borders are likely to never have a meaningful conversation with the chatbot no matter how sophisticated it is”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Silvervarg & Jönsson, 2013
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the researchers estimated that about 4% of the conversations included sexually explicit utterances”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Curry & Rieser, 2018
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“2.8% of all statements were abusive”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lasek & Jessa, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When analyzing conversation logs from hotel chatbots, Lasek and Jessa (2013) observed that 4% of the conversations contained vulgar, indecent, and insulting vocabulary”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lasek & Jessa, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“casually testing the chatbots' 'intelligence' is a manifestation of satisfaction seeking”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Q. V. Liao et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the customer services context, the chatbot needs to avoid disappointing the user, as frustration may negatively reflect the business that the agent represents (Araujo, 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Araujo, 2018
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“sexual expressions represented 1.8% of all statements”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lasek & Jessa, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Wallis and Norling (2005) argue that handling this type of testing helps the chatbots to establish limits and resolve social positioning.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Damage control enables the chatbot to admit the lack of knowledge or cover up cleverly (Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a few interactions failed because the users' motivations were curiosity and mischief rather than trying to solve the decision problem”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mäurer & Weihe, 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Providing means to identify an abusive utterance is important to adopting damage control strategies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Enriching chatbots with the ability to choose between the options is a challenge.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The most powerful conversational act that predicted user satisfaction in that study was the agent ability-check questions, see discussion in Communicability section) and the explicit feedback #fail , although closings and off-topic requests were also significant in predicting frustration.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Q. V. Liao et al., 2018
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“successfully implementing conscientiousness and communicability may prevent errors; hence, strategies to provide these characteristics can also be used for damage control”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Because they do not understand profanity or abuse, they may not recognize a statement as harassment, which makes it difficult to adopt answering strategies (Curry & Rieser, 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Curry & Rieser, 2018
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“42.4% of the users did it at least once, and the number of complaints and flaming for the proposed chatbot was significantly lower than the baseline”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Q. V. Liao et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“being part of a recognized institution places the chatbot in a stronger social group”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Toxtli et al. (2018) and Jenkins et al. (2007) also suggest that chatbots could redirect users' problematic requests to a human attendant in order to avoid conflict situations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Toxtli et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Jenkins et al., 2007
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, the amount of implicit feedback was also significant, which advocates for predicting user's satisfaction from the conversation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Q. V. Liao et al., 2018
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For Bj¨ orkqvist et al. (2000), choosing between peaceful or aggressive reactions in conflict situations is optional for socially intelligent individuals.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Björkqvist et al., 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“when facing testing or abuse, chatbots can communicate consequences (Silvervarg & J¨ onsson, 2013) or call on the authority of others (Toxtli et al., 2018; Wallis & Norling, 2005)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Silvervarg & Jönsson, 2013
- Not checked yetcites Toxtli et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wallis and Norling (2005) argue that ignoring abuse and testing is not a good strategy because it could encourage more extreme behaviors.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It also positions the chatbot as an inferior individual, which is particularly harmful in scenarios where the chatbot should demonstrate a more prominent or authoritative social role (e.g., a tutor).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wallis and Norling (2005) suggest that when faced with abuse, a chatbot could be seen to take offense and respond in kind or act hurt.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Damage control strategies need to be adapted to both the social situation and the intensity of the conflict.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wallis and Norling (2005) argue that when the chatbot is not accepted as part of the social group it represents, it is discredited by the user, leading the interaction to fail.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Gnewuch et al. (2017) discuss that posting confirmation messages avoids trapping the users in the wrong conversation path.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strategies can escalate in severity if the conflict is not solved.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“abusive behavior may lead the chatbot to stop responding until the student changes the topic”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Silvervarg & Jönsson, 2013
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Curry and Rieser (2018) categorized responses from state-of-the-art conversational systems in a pool of emotional reactions, both positive and negative.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Curry & Rieser, 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Deciding what strategy is adequate to the intensity of the conflict is crucial (Wallis & Norling, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“humans might feel inhibited about hurting the pretended feelings of a machine if the machine is willing to hurt a human's feelings too (Wallis & Norling, 2005)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“designing chatbots with too strong of reactions may lead to ethical concerns (Wallis & Norling, 2005)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“cooperative users are significantly more likely to give a higher rating for overall evaluation and decision efficiency”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mäurer & Weihe, 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“having visual elements such as quick replies prevents errors, since they keep the users aware of what to ask and the chatbot is more likely to know how to respond (Duijst, 2017)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijst, 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In humanchatbot interactions, however, predicting users' behavior toward the chatbots in a specific context to develop the appropriate behavior is a challenge.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to Wallis and Norling (2005), humans also fail in conversations; they misunderstand what their partner says and do not know things that are assumed common knowledge by others.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“users appeared to be uncomfortable and annoyed whenever the chatbot pointed out any defect in the user or reacted to aggression, as this behavior conflicted with the user's perceived power relations”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Angeli, Johnson, & Coventry, 2001
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The reactions include humorous responses, chastising and retaliation, and evasive responses, as well as flirtation and play-along utterances.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Curry & Rieser, 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If escalating the aggressive behavior is not appropriate, the chatbot could withdraw from the conversation (Wallis & Norling, 2005) to demonstrate that the user's behavior is not acceptable.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To provide an emotional reaction, emotional intelligence is also required.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Curry and Rieser (2018) showed that being evasive about sexual statements may convey the impression of flirtatiousness, which would not be an acceptable behavior for a customer assistant or a tutor chatbot.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Curry & Rieser, 2018
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this strategy is useful to prevent unwanted behavior, it does not manifest agency, but rather alienates the chatbot of the topic.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“people use, indeed, fewer words per message and a more limited vocabulary with chatbots”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hill et al., 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Statistical results showed that all the constructs correlate with morality, which suggests that manifesting moral agency can enrich interpersonal relationships with chatbots.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Banks (2018)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moral agency was observed in only two domains of studies: open domain (four studies) and race-talk (two studies), which shows that this characteristic is primarily relevant when the conversational topic may raise moral concerns, which ultimately requires ethical behavior from the conversational partners.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“even so, current online communication media has been successfully used to initiate, develop, and maintain interpersonal relationships (Walther, 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Walther, 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“De Angeli and Brahnam (2006) show that the lack of understanding about sex-talk does not prevent the studied chatbot from harsh verbal abuse, or even from being perceived as encouraging such abuse.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Angeli and Brahnam (2006)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In Shum et al. (2018), moral agency is discussed as a secondary result, where the authors discuss the impact of biased responses on emotional connection.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shum et al. (2018)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although the chatbot's personification is more evident in embodied conversational agents, text-based chatbots may also be assessed by their social representation, which risks building or reinforcing stereotypes (Marino, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marino, 2014
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CMC is by itself more impersonal than face-to-face conversation (Walther, 1992, 1996);”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Walther, 1992, 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Schlesinger et al. (2018) argue that the lack of context about the world does not redeem the chatbot from the necessity of being respectful with all the social groups.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schlesinger et al. (2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Participants who received frequent follow-up questions from the task management chatbot about their pending tasks perceived the chatbot as invasive.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Toxtli et al. (2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When the chatbot is positioned in a minority identity group, it exposes the image of that group to judgment and flaming, which is frequent in chatbot interactions (Marino, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marino, 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“[B1] to increase human-likeness”
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“De Angeli and Brahnam (2006) show that sex talks with the male chatbot were rarely coercive or violent; his sexual preference was often questioned, though, and he was frequently propositioned by reported male users.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Angeli and Brahnam (2006)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the repetition of this vocabulary led the users to imitate it”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jenkins et al., 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“On the one hand, this approach produces high quality utterances; on the other hand, it reduces flexibility, since the chatbot is not able to adapt the tone of the conversation based on individual users and conversational context.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mairesse & Walker, 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ayedoun et al. (2017), Kumar et al. (2010), and Dohsaka et al. (2014) suggest that affective utterances improve the interpersonal relationship with a tutor chatbot.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ayedoun et al. (2017)
- Not checked yetcites Kumar et al. (2010)
- Not checked yetcites Dohsaka et al. (2014)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“An emotionally intelligent chatbot can recognize and influence users' feelings and demonstrate respect, empathy, and understanding, improving the humanchatbot relationship (Li et al., 2017; Salovey & Mayer, 1990).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Li et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Salovey & Mayer, 1990
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Quantitative results showed that the WoZ condition was more engaging, since it resulted in conversations that lasted longer, with a higher number of turns.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Portela and Granell-Canut (2017)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The authors statistically demonstrated that affective backchannel, combined with communicative strategies (see Section 3.1.2) significantly increased learners' confidence and desire to communicate, while reducing anxiety.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ayedoun et al. (2017)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Building unbiased training datasets and learning algorithms that connect the outputs with individual, real-world experiences, therefore, are challenges to overcome.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The wizards were blind to whether users thought they were talking to a chatbot or a person, which reveals that identity does not matter if the challenge of regulating emotions is overcome.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, moral agency relies on data that is biased in its nature, producing unsatisfactory results from an ethical perspective.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Shum et al. (2018) argue that longer conversations (10+ turns) are needed to fulfill the needs of affection and belonging.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shum et al. (2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Ho et al. (2018) state that chatbot's empathic utterances may be seen as pre-programmed and inauthentic.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ho et al. (2018)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“(Morris, 2002) argue that adapting chatbots' language to their current emotional state, along with their personality and social role awareness, results in more believable interactions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morris, 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although chatbots do not have genuine emotions (Wallis & Norling, 2005), there are considerable discussions about the role of manifesting emotional cues in chatbots (Ho et al., 2018; Shum et al., 2018; Wallis & Norling, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis & Norling, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Thies et al. (2017), the energetic chatbot was reported as having an enthusiasm too high to match.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thies et al. (2017)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Five participants highlighted that the chatbot demonstrated attention to their users' feelings.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites K. K. Fitzpatrick et al. (2017)
plainn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result shows that empathic utterances encouraged the users to engage and utter non-answers statements.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Wallis and Norling (2005), when a chatbot's emotional reaction triggers a social response from the user, the chatbot has achieved group membership and users' sympathy.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wallis and Norling (2005)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In Shum et al. (2018), the authors propose a framework for developing social chatbots. The authors highlight that the core chat module should follow ethical design to generate unbiased, non-discriminative responses, but they do not discuss specific strategies for that.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shum et al. (2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although their results revealed that the partners' identity (chatbot vs. person) had no effect in the perceived relational and emotional experience, the chatbot condition was a WoZ setup.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ho et al. (2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As discussed in this section, research on perceived moral agency is still necessary in order to develop chatbots whose social behavior is inclusive and respectful.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Qualitative results show that affective moves significantly improve the perception of amicability, and marginally increased social belonging.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kumar et al. (2010)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Conversational logs revealed that the human tutor performed a significantly higher number of affective moves in that context.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kumar et al. (2010)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Duijvelshoff (2017) state that personalizing the amount of personal information a chatbot can access and store is required to establish a relation of trust and reciprocity in workplace environments.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijvelshoff (2017)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Shum et al. (2018) argue that chatbots whose focus is engagement need to personalize the generation of responses for different users' backgrounds, personal interests, and needs in order to serve their needs for communication, affection, and social belonging.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shum et al. (2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Results demonstrated that reciprocity and self-disclosure are strong predictors of rapport and user satisfaction.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites S. Lee and Choi (2017)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Shum et al. (2018) argue that a chatbot needs to combine usefulness with emotion by asking questions that help to clarify the users' intentions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shum et al. (2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although Duijst (2017) has found no significant effect of personalization on the user experience with the financial assistant chatbot, the study applies personalization as the ability to provide empathic responses according to the users' issues, where emotional intelligence plays a role.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijst (2017)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Keeping track of the conversation was reported as an empathic behavior and resulted in mutual affection.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Portela and GranellCanut (2017)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When exploring how teammates used a task-assignment chatbot, Toxtli et al. (2018) found that the use of the chatbot varied depending on the participants' levels of hierarchy.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Toxtli et al. (2018)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Jain, Kumar, et al. (2018), two participants also expected chatbots to retain context from previous interactions to improve recommendations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al. (2018)
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using emotional utterances in a personalized, context relevant way is still a challenge.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the ethnography data collection study (Tallyn et al., 2018), eight participants reported dissatisfaction with the chatbot's generic guidance to specific places.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tallyn et al., 2018
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Adopting this strategy requires the chatbot to handle message understanding, emotion and sentiment tracking, session context modeling, and user profiling Shum et al. (2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shum et al. (2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“in HCI, personalization is used to customize the interface toward user familiarity (Fan & Poole, 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fan & Poole, 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Jenkins et al. (2007), one participant suggested that the choice of text color and font size should be customizable.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jenkins et al. (2007)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This outcome support to the need to personalize the interaction to individual user's mental models.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Duijst (2017) also observed that participants faced difficulties with small letters, and concluded that adapting the interface to provide accessibility also needs to be considered.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijst (2017)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“V. Q. Liao et al. (2016) also found that users with low social-agent orientation emphasize the utilitarian value of the system, while users with high social-agent orientation see the system as a humanized assistant.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites V. Q. Liao et al. (2016)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interpersonal relationship can also be enriched by adapting the chatbots' language to match the user's context, energy, and formality; the ability to appropriately use language is discussed in Section 3.2.2.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Grounded in robots and artificial agents' literature, V. Q. Liao et al. (2016) argue that personalization can improve rapport and cooperation, ultimately increasing engagement with chatbots.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites V. Q. Liao et al. (2016)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In task-oriented contexts, such as task management, personalization aims to increase the relevance of services to particular users (V. Q. Liao et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites V. Q. Liao et al., 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To enrich the efficiency and productivity of the interaction, a chatbot needs to have memory of previous interactions as well as learn user's preferences and disclosed personal information (Thies et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thies et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, participants in Zamora (2017) reported that personal data and social media content may be inappropriate topics for chatbots because they can be sensitive.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zamora (2017)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adaption to the dynamic context also improves the sense of personalized interactions, which is discussed in the next section.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Neururer et al. (2018), interviews with 12 participants generated a total of 59 statements about how learning from experience promotes chatbots' authenticity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Neururer et al. (2018)
plaindirectn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[B1] to increase engagement: when evaluating signals of playful interactions, Q. V. Liao et al. (2018) found that agent-oriented conversations (asking about an agent's traits and status) are consistent with the tendency to anthropomorphize the agent and engage in chit-chat.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Q. V. Liao et al. (2018)
- Not checked yetcites Silvervarg and Jönsson (2013)
- Not checked yetcites Araujo (2018)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“In the HCI field, researchers argue that using a personified character in the user interface is a natural way to support the interaction (Koda, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Koda, 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the user prefers a more generic chatbot, then it would not store personal data, potentially increasing the engagement with more resistant users.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“V. Q. Liao et al. (2016) suggest that users should be able to choose the level of the chatbot's attributes, for example, the agent's look and persona.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites V. Q. Liao et al. (2016)
hedged- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thies et al. (2017) raise the possibility of offering an 'incognito' mode for chatbots or asking the chatbot to forget what was said in previous utterances.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thies et al. (2017)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This differentiation could be the first signal to personalize further conversation, such as focusing on more productive or playful interactions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These concerns may be reduced if a chatbot demonstrates care about privacy (Duijvelshoff, 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijvelshoff, 2017
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to De Angeli (2005), talking to a machine affords it a new identity .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Angeli (2005)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although chatbots lack the agency to choose what social group to which they want to belong, designers attribute identity to them, intentionally or not, when they define the way a chatbot talks or behaves (Cassell, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cassell, 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As discussed in Section 3.1.2, quick replies may be seen as restrictive from an interactional perspective; however, conversation logs showed that the tailored questions prompted the users to report more detail about their experience, which is important in ethnography research.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tallyn et al. (2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Neururer et al. (2018) state that chatbots should present strategies to learn from cultural, behavioral, personal, conversational, and contextual interaction data.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Neururer et al. (2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By doing so, users with low social-agent orientation could use a non-humanized interface, which would better represent their initial perspective.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Regarding chatbots' learning capabilities, in Duijvelshoff (2017), interviews with potential users revealed that users should be able to manage what information the chatbot knows about them and decide whether the chatbot can learn from previous interactions or not.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duijvelshoff (2017)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although research on personification is more common in the Embodied Conversational Agents field, De Angeli, Johnson, and Coventry (2001) claim that chatbot embodiment can be created through narrative without any visual help.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Angeli, Johnson, and Coventry (2001)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[C2] to balance the identity and the technical capabilities: the literature comparing embodied vs. disembodied conversational agents yields contradictory results regarding the relevance of a human representation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corti and Gillespie (2016)
- Not checked yetcites Ciechanowski et al. (2018)
- Not checked yetcites Gnewuch et al. (2017)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Thies et al. (2017) also suggest that the chatbot should remember user's preferences disclosed in previous conversations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thies et al. (2017)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When evaluating different typefaces for a financial adviser chatbot, Candello et al. (2017) found that users perceive machine-like typefaces as more chatbot-like, although they did not find strong evidence of handwriting-like typefaces conveying humanness.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Candello et al. (2017)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[C1] to adapt humor to the users' culture: sense of humor is highly shaped by cultural environment (Ruch, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ruch (1998)
- Not checked yetcites Ptaszynski et al. (2010)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When evaluating the effect of gender identity on disinhibition, Brahnam and De Angeli (2012) showed that people spoke more often about physical appearance and used more swear and sexual words with the female-presenting chatbot, and racist attacks were observed in interactions with black-representing chatbots.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brahnam and De Angeli (2012)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, since the definition of chatbot is not consolidated in the literature and chatbots have been studied across several different domains, some studies that include social aspects of chatbots may not have been found.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To account for that, we adopted several synonyms in our research string and used Google Scholar as search engine, which provides a fairly comprehensive indexing of the literature in more domains.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and both the conceptual framework and the relationships amongst the characteristics were derived based on outcomes the surveyed studies explicitly reported.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Outcomes consistently suggest that students prefer a chatbot that is not overly polite, but has some attitude.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ayedoun et al., 2017
- Not checked yetcites Kumar et al., 2010
- Not checked yetcites Sjödén et al., 2011
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, since this survey focused on disembodied, text-based chatbots, the literature on embodied and speech-based conversational agents was excluded.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For example, conscientiousness , thoroughness , and proactivity might be covered by the cooperative principle (Grice et al., 1975)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grice et al., 1975
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the conceptual model of social characteristics was derived through a coding process inspired by qualitative methods, such as Grounded Theory.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like any qualitative coding methods, it relies on the researchers' subjective assessment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, puns are restricted to a specific culture and language, with low portability.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ptaszynski et al. (2010)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Jain, Kumar, et al. (2018) discussed that a chatbot's personality should match its domain.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jain, Kumar, et al. (2018)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The social characteristics identified in the survey align well with characteristics that are present in human-human interactions.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, this decision may have caused the under-representation of certain research domains.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“in contrast, when evaluating a website assistant chatbot, Ciechanowski et al. (2018) show that simpler text-based chatbots with no visual, human identity resulted in less of an uncanny effect and reduced negative affect.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ciechanowski et al. (2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In Shum et al. (2018) and (Sj¨ od´ en et al., 2011), the authors argue that a consistent personality helps the chatbot to gain the users' confidence and trust.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shum et al. (2018)
- Not checked yetcites Sjödén et al. (2011)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Ptaszynski et al. (2010), the joker chatbot was perceived as more human-like, knowledgeable, and funny, and participants felt more engaged.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ptaszynski et al. (2010)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On the one hand, this survey shows the benefits of considering these characteristics when developing chatbots, which is supported by the Media Equation theory (Nass & Moon, 2000; Nass et al., 1993); we identified the domains in which each characteristic was studied.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nass & Moon, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Nass et al., 1993
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, as the chatbots enrich their communication and social skills, their perceived social role may approach human profiles.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Mairesse and Walker (2009), the researchers intentionally generated utterances to reflect extreme personalities; as a result, they observed that some utterances sounded unnatural because a human's personality is a continuous phenomenon, rather than a discrete one.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mairesse and Walker (2009)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To mitigate this threat, the researchers discussed the social characteristics and categories during in-person meetings until reaching consensus, and both the conceptual framework and the relationships amongst the characteristics were derived based on outcomes the surveyed studies explicitly reported.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The increasing need to approximate conversational interaction styles raises users' expectations that chatbots present social behaviors habitual in human-human communication.
“The increasing need to approximate conversational interaction styles raises expectations for chatbots to present social behaviors that are habitual in human-human communication.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Chatbots' social characteristics knowledge is spread across several domains in which chatbots have been studied.
“Although chatbots' social characteristics have been explored in the literature, this knowledge is spread across several domains in which chatbots have been studied, such as customer services, education, finances, and travel.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A lack of studies brings together the social characteristics that influence the way users perceive and behave toward chatbots.
“Whilst the literature has extensively reviewed the technical aspects of chatbots design (e.g., Ahmad, Che, Zainal, Rauf, and Adnan (2018); Deshpande, Shahane, Gadre, Deshpande, and Joshi (2017); Masche and Le (2017); Ramesh, Ravishankaran, Joshi, and Chandrasekaran (2017); Thorne (2017); Walgama and Hettige (2017); Winkler and S¨ ollner (2018)), a lack of studies brings together the social char”
The paper relies on this without support.
The literature presents no coherent definition of chatbots.
“The literature presents no coherent definition of chatbots; thus, to find relevant studies we used a search string that includes the synonyms 'chatbots, chatterbots, conversational agents, conversational interfaces, conversational systems, conversation systems, dialogue systems, digital assistants, intelligent assistants, conversational user interfaces, and conversational UI' .”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most studies do not explicitly label their results as social characteristics/traits.
“We decided to not include terms that relate to social characteristics/traits, because most studies do not explicitly label their results as such.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The characteristics and categories are seldom explicitly highlighted in the literature.
“Noticeably, the characteristics and categories are seldom explicitly highlighted to in the literature, so the conceptual model was derived using a qualitative coding process inspired by methods such as Grounded Theory (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003) (open coding stage).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The set of social characteristics identified from the surveyed literature is the relevant set for designing chatbot social behavior.
“In this survey, we investigated the literature on disembodied, text-based chatbots to answer the question 'What chatbot social characteristics benefit human interactions and what are the challenges and strategies associated with them?'”
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?
In the citing paper
“E-learning and mental health represent relevant interaction contexts, which have also seen great prominence in recent publications (Androutsopoulos et al., 1995; Chaves & Gerosa, 2021; Følstad & Skjuve, 2019; Hauswald et al., 2016).”
From Charting the Evolution and Future of Conversational Agents: A Research Agenda Along Five Waves and New Frontiers (2024) · cites this paper as Chaves & Gerosa, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“General purpose chatbots reflect 33% of the surveyed studies. Most general purpose chatbots (16 out of 19) are designed to handle topic-unrestricted conversations.”
Reported 33 · recomputed 33.928571
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Most surveyed studies adopted real chatbots (35 out of 56); among them, 18 studies analyze logs of conversations or users' perceptions of third-party chatbots such as Cleverbot (e.g., Corti and Gillespie (2016)), Talkbot (e.g., Brahnam and De Angeli (2012)), and Woebot K. K. Fitzpatrick et al. (2017). Nine studies introduce a selfdeveloped architecture and/or dialogue management”
Reported 35 · recomputed 36
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990) · Imagination, Cognition and Personality · doi:10.2190/dugg-p24e-52wk-6cdg · Cited by 10,484
I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE
TURING, A. M. (1950) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/lix.236.433 · Cited by 10,290 · cited 2×
“The origin of the chatbots concept dates back to 1950 [Turing 1950].”
BackgroundThe emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review
Gross, J. J. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271 · Cited by 9,916
An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216 · Cited by 6,652
Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 · Cited by 6,404
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798 · cited 1×
“CMC is by itself more impersonal than face-to-face conversations [Walther 1992, 1996]; even so, current online communication media has been successfully used to initiate, develop, and maintain interpersonal relationships [Walther 2011].”
BackgroundIdentity Theory and Social Identity Theory
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2695870 · Cited by 4,464
ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine
Weizenbaum, J. (1966) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/365153.365168 · Cited by 4,452
Personality trait structure as a human universal.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.5.509 · Cited by 4,234
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- Abdul-Kader S. A., 2015, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 6, 72
- Auerbach C., 2003, Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis
- Augello A., 2017, International conference on internet science, 236
- Baron N. S., 1984, Visible Language, 18, 118
- Chaves A. P., 2018, Acm sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems
- Conrad S., 2009, Register, genre, and style
- De Angeli A., 2005, Proceedings of the joint symposium on virtual social agents, 7
- De Angeli A., 2006, Proceedings of the avi 2006 workshop on gender and interaction: real and virtual women in a male world
- De Angeli A., 2001, Proceedings of the international conference on affective human factors design, london, 467
- De Angeli A., 2001, Interact, 198
- De Souza, C. S., Prates, R. O. & Barbosa, S. D. (1999). A method for evaluating software communicability. In Proceedings of the IHC '99, Art28 (pp. 1–7). Campinas, SP, Brazil. October, 1999. https://www.unicamp.br/~ihc99/Ihc99/AtasIHC99/Atas.html
- Deshpande A., 2017, International Journal of Computer Engineering and Applications. XI(Special issue), 1–7. https://www.ijcea.com/survey-various-chatbot-implementation-techniques/
- Duijst, D. (2017). Can we improve the user experience of chatbots with personalisation [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Amsterdam.
- Duijvelshoff W., 2017, Workshop on chatbots and artificial intelligence
- Dyke G., 2013, Intelligent tutoring systems, 531
- Elliott, C. (1994). Research problems in the use of as allow artificial intelligence model of personality and emotion . In Proceedings of Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94) (pp. 9–15). The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California.
- Ferman, M. (2018). Towards best practices for chatbots [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Universidad Villa Rica.
- Gnewuch U., 2017, International conference on information systems 2017, proceedings 1
- Hayashi Y., 2015, International conference on educational data mining (edm)
- Kirakowskim J., O’Donnell, P., Yiu, A., 2009, Human-computer interaction
- Koda T., 2003, IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 86, 1369
- Lasek M., 2013, Information Systems in Management, 2, 146
- Li Y., 2017, International joint conference on natural language processing (ijcnlp), 986
- Liao Q. V., 2018, Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems
- Mairesse F., 2009, Can conversational agents express big five personality traits through language?: Evaluating a psychologically-informed language generator
- Masche J., 2017, International conference on computer science, applied mathematics and applications, 212
- Maslowski I., 2017, International conference on natural language and speech processing
- Meany M. M., 2010, International Journal of the Humanities, 8, 129
- Morris T. W., 2002, Artificial intelligence and interactive entertainment, Technical Report SS-02-01, 82
- Nass C., 1994, Computers are social actors, 72
- Neff G., 2016, International Journal of Communication, 10, 17
- Nguyen Q. N., 2018, Twenty-fourth americas conference on information systems – emergent research forum (erf)
- Radziwill N. M., 2017, Software Quality Professional, 19, 25
- Reeves B., 1996, How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places
- Ruch W., 1998, The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic, 3
- Satu, M. S., Parvez, M. H., Shamim-Al-Mamun, 2015, Computer and information engineering (iccie), 2015 1st international conference on, 87
- Schuetzler R. M., 2018, Americas conference on information systems 2018 proceedings
- Shawar, B. A. & Atwell, E. (2007). Chatbots: Are they really useful? Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics , 22 (1), 29–49. GSCL German Society for Computational Linguistics. https://jlcl.org/content/2-allissues/21-Heft1-2007/Bayan_Abu-Shawar_and_Eric_Atwell.pdf
- Silvervarg A., 2013, 6th international joint conference on natural language processing (ijcnlp 2013), 1223
- Thies I. M., 2017, Human-computer interaction–interact, 10513, 441
- Thomson L., 2005, 1st international workshop on innovations in web infrastructure (iwi 2005) co-located with the 14th world- wide web conference (www2005), japan
- Toxtli, C., Monroy-Hernández, A., Cranshaw, J., 2018, Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems, 58
- Walgama M., 2017, KDU international research conference
- Wallis P., 2005, Proceedings of the joint symposium on virtual social agents, 29
- Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication. (4th ed., pp. 443–479). Sage.
- Zhu P., 2018, Proceedings of the 27th international conference on computational linguistics: System demonstrations, 108
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–572 of 572
Monteiro, M. D. S., Pereira, V. C., & Salgado, L. C. D. C. (2026) · Journal on Interactive Systems · doi:10.5753/jis.2026.5908
MEF Kütüphane - Sanal Asistanı: ChatGPT Tabanlı Bir Chatbot Geliştirme Süreci
Çelik, R., Erdoğan, N., & Kocatürk, G. (2026) · Library Archive and Museum Research Journal · doi:10.59116/lamre.1791136
Lan, Y., Liu, S., Liu, C., & Chen, H. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.94129
Bylieva, D. S., & Lobatyuk, V. V. (2026) · Философская мысль · doi:10.25136/2409-8728.2026.2.78040
Karayanni, D. A., Dragotis, E., Stamatiou, Y. C., & Panagiotakopoulou, D.-P. (2026) · Springer proceedings in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12968-0_70
From Inquiry to Interaction: Evaluating Interaction Styles of AI-Based Conversational Agents
Hofbauer, S., Gimpel, H., Lämmermann, L., & Markgraf, M. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2639667
Agarwal, C., & Krishnaswamy, V. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2639098
García, A. H., Vela, F. L. G., Paderewski, P., & Kawamoto, A. L. S. (2026) · Revista de la Asociación Interacción Persona Ordenador (AIPO) · doi:10.65234/interaccion.132
Qu, Q., Zhang, L., Guo, F., & Duffy, V. G. (2026) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2026.2651118
Digital technologies and professional training: The case of human interaction specialists
Зенченко, Т., Tsehelnyk, T. M., Коробчук, Л. І., Чувасов, М. О., & НЕВЕЛЯ, А. (2026) · EDUWEB · doi:10.46502/issn.1856-7576/2026.20.01.10
Conversational signatures: structural patterns in human–AI interaction across models and platforms
Kraishan, O. (2026) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwag017 · Cited by 1
Biblios: building an AI-powered chatbot for library resource discovery – a practitioner case study
Amin, S. M. R. U., Reza, R. B., & Mahmud, M. R. (2026) · Library Hi Tech News · doi:10.1108/lhtn-03-2026-0042
MindBot: Design and Development of an Intelligent AI Chatbot for Emotional Support Systems
Kaushik, P., Lohiya, N. K., Rana, G., Kumar, R. R., Gulia, M., & Guleria, N. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Interdisciplinary Approaches in Technology and Management for Social Innovation (IATMSI) · doi:10.1109/iatmsi68868.2026.11465793
Cox, S. R., Wester, J., & van Berkel, N. (2026) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790340 · Cited by 4
Understanding User Satisfaction with E-Commerce Chatbots in Vietnam
Phuc, T. V. (2026) · Journal of Digital Business and International Marketing · doi:10.64026/jdbim/2026008
HUMANAISE: Key AI Properties Augmenting Behavioural Response
Bialkova, S. (2026) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-16284-7_4
Zhou, Z., Gao, W., Li, Y., & Yu, J. (2026) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2026.101403 · Cited by 11
Automated Reasoning Tools and their Application in Text Mining
Madhuri, G. S., Mehrotra, T., & Kannadhasan, S. (2026) · BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks · doi:10.2174/9798898815318126040008
Comfort in the Digital Age: The Mechanism of AI Emotional Support
张, 熙. (2026) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.12677/ap.2026.165252
What Factors' Gen Z Acceptance of AI Learning as Powered Study Assistants
Tianto, B., Loka, G. B., Christianto, N. B., & Sari, R. (2026) · International Conference on Current Research in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science (ICCRAIDS) · doi:10.1109/iccraids67816.2026.11519751
Liu, J., Chen, Y., Liu, X., & Liu, R. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.134025
Modelos predictivos y herramientas de transparencia en el Derecho Tributario
Vargas, P. J. J. (2026) · Revista Española de la Transparencia · doi:10.51915/ret.426 · Cited by 2
Building Relationships with AI Coaches: Insights from Chatbot Coaching Research
Mai, V., & Richert, A. (2026) · SpringerBriefs in psychology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23332-5_3
Chatterjee, R. S., Singh, B., Chaudhuri, R., Chatterjee, S., Vrontis, D., & Foroudi, P. (2026) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2026.2662669
How human AI should be: Measuring instrument for core agent featuresPreprint
Bialkova, S. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6875450
Bartali, V., Croes, E. A. J., Antheunis, M. L., Bosse, T., & de Groot, R. H. M. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2677759 · Cited by 1
Department Visitor Assistance System with Augmented Reality Navigation
Viswanath, K., Siju, S., Philip, L., Maria, J., Anly Antony, M., & Satheesh Kumar, R. (2026) · International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Social Networking (ICPCSN) · doi:10.1109/icpcsn68523.2026.11543530
He, Y. (2026) · International Conference on Recent Trends in Computer Science and Technology (ICRTCST) · doi:10.1109/icrtcst68392.2026.11545277
Ebner, K., Hofer, A., Souček, R., & Spurk, D. (2026) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2026.104264
MIRA: A Human-AI Co-Creation Agent for Self-reflection through Squiggle Game
Jin, Y., Wang, T., Qin, D. R., Zhou, Z., Bi, M., Hua, M., & Wang, P. (2026) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3800645.3813019
Narrative Plasticity and State Stickiness: Designing Hybrid AI Systems for High-Stakes Communication
Kessler, D. T., Overney, C., Shen, J. J., & Roy, D. K. (2026) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3800645.3813073
Zou, W., Qu, J. G., Yi, J., & Li, Z. (2026) · Mass Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/15205436.2026.2687866
Personality-driven trust and satisfaction in AI chatbots: a behavioral economics perspective
Klunklin, P., Tantiprabha, P., Maneesong, O., Changchit, C., & Lonkani, R. (2026) · Review of Behavioral Economics · doi:10.1108/rbe-09-2025-0089
Speaking with LLMs: Co-Designing Voice Interaction Patterns with Blind and Visually Impaired Users
Pucci, E., Fede, G. D., Gilbert, M., Leporini, B., Andolina, S., & Matera, M. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2688501
Akpan, A., Sandy, I. M., Oloko, O., Ebubechi, A., Nwachukwu, E., Ilo, C., Timothy, M., James, E. A. U., Udoubom, I. A., Kinoti, J., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10175428/v1
AUTOMED: A Finite Automata-Based Framework for Health Misinformation Detection in Medical Chatbots
Postiglione, A., & Nota, G. (2026) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23347-9_30
Evaluating User Experience in an Educational Chatbot Creation Platform
de Lima, E. S., & Neggers, M. M. E. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-31048-4_33
Yao, S., Wang, J., Liu, D., & Liu, J. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107389
Feng, A., Fan, L., Li, Y., & Zhao, Z. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2695443
“It Feels like a Friend, Sometimes More”: A Qualitative Study of Affective Human–AI Relationships
Cheng, N., & Yu, R. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29903-1_24
AI-Therapist: A Conversational AI System for Accessible and Scalable Mental Health Support
Rathore, R., Meena, A. K., Haldorai, A., Anusha, P., Kiran, K., & Dhanusha, R. (2026) · International Conference on AI, Data Science, Cyber Security and Smart Manufacturing for Sustainable Development (ICADCS) · doi:10.1109/icadcs70036.2026.11583013
Li, J., Zhao, Y., & Kim, K.-M. (2026) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.70207
Animating AI: Language variation and “enoughness” in voice user interfaces
Jones, R. H. (2026) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190526100312
Tian, Y., Wang, Z., & Han, R. (2026) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2026.101507
A survey on chatbot systems from rule-based models to system-integrated natural user interfaces
Yang, W., Kang, B. H., & Su, J. (2026) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116651
What Counts as Proactive? Rethinking Proactivity in Conversational Agents
Kraus, M., Zepf, S., Leusmann, J., Zhang, S., Kuzminykh, A., & Zargham, N. (2026) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3816046.3816303
Tian, Y., & Cui, M. (2025) · Asia Conference on Cognitive Engineering and Intelligent Interaction (CEII) · doi:10.1109/ceii67787.2025.00046
Same, Same But Different? A Cross-Domain Analysis of Chatbot User Interfaces
Rockstroh, J., Spillner, L., Wenig, N., Mildner, T., Zargham, N., & Malaka, R. (2026) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3816046.3816229
Kim, J. M., & Kim, S. (2026) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.70213
Yin, Q., & Ma, X. (2026) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2026.2706638
Bartali, V., Croes, E. A. J., Bosse, T., de Groot, R. H. M., & Antheunis, M. L. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26717-7_3
Najati, I. (2026) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103400
Summoogum, K., Lah, J. Y., Ansari, M., & Das, D. (2026) · doi:10.1109/iccms69991.2026.11642652
Dai, J., Choi, J. K.-M., & Wang, M. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-026-14123-9
Liang, H., Liu, Y., Yang, J., Wang, X., Wong, F. Y. M., Zhao, K., & Fan, M. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2706908
Designing chatbots for E-commerce engagement: A multi-study approach
Duong, N. T., Bui, T., & Nguyen, C. M. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101265
Liu, D., & Niu, X. (2026) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer21090291
Chen, X., Ding, S., Hou, S., & Chai, C. (2025) · International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design · doi:10.1109/iscid68789.2025.00026
Mitigating Chatbot Service Failures: The Roles of Anthropomorphism, Acknowledgment, and Apology
Lee, J., Chu, W., & Roy, R. (2026) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.70240
Hou, J.-R., & Ismiati, M. B. (2026) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-026-10814-3
Khan, M. I., & Ladwig, R. C. (2026) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-03-2026-0476
When AI Remembers: Investigating the Dual Role of Long‐Term Memory in Chatbots
Parvizian, M., Whittaker, L., Daronkola, H. K., Pallant, J. L., & Johnson, L. W. (2026) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.70267 · Cited by 1
Martin, V., Ménard, C., Micoulaud‐Franchi, J., Bodini, J. G., Lastic, A. D., Berenguer, R., Mouchabac, S., Boucaud, F., Pélachaud, C., Pécune, F., et al. (2026) · L Encéphale · doi:10.1016/j.encep.2026.07.005
Development of a RAG-Powered Chatbot for Assistive Technologies Benchmarking
Mahboub, A., Arredondo, M. T., & Cabrera-Umpiérrez, M. F. (2026) · World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7 - 12, 2009, Munich, Germany · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-37739-5_57
Boukamcha, F. (2026) · Strategic Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.sbr.2026.100305
Li, B., Shi, L., Bu, X., & Zhou, H. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1950646
Nguyen, M. T., Thach, K. T. D., Nguyen, C. N. L., Nguyen, A. C., & Doan, H. K. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/8063779
Interview with the AI: a quantitative analysis of AI companions’ relationship formation features
Dede, E., Sungur, H., Lemmens, J. S., & Peter, J. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03368-0 · Cited by 1
Learn AI with AI: Designing conversational agents to support older adults in learning about AI
KangJie, E. T., Song, T., Shi, M., & Lee, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2026.103953
Qin, Z., Yeo, H.-S., & Wu, M. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-6916-7_18
From curiosity to churn: A longitudinal analysis of user engagement with an LLM-powered social bot
Lin, C., Wang, W., & Jiang, Z. (2026) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2026.102473
Metadata
- Authors
- Chaves, A. P., & Gerosa, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (BR)
- Northern Arizona University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chaves, Ana Paula
- ORCID
- Chaves, Ana Paula
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-11-08
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 729-758
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W2939803556
- Semantic Scholar
- df6ae7c951a4ae2b548c86768cd94be28adee7f3
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 115
- Citations by year
- 2026: 101 · 2025: 134 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 59.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- chatbots, human-chatbot interaction, social characteristics, chatbot design, conversation, text-based chatbots, user expectations, conceptual model
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
