The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
At Your Service: Designing Voice Assistant Personalities to Improve Automotive User Interfaces
Open accessAbstract
This paper investigates personalized voice characters for in-car speech interfaces. In particular, we report on how we designed different personalities for voice assistants and compared them in a real world driving study. Voice assistants have become important for a wide range of use cases, yet current interfaces are using the same style of auditory response in every situation, despite varying user needs and personalities. To close this gap, we designed four assistant personalities (Friend, Admirer, Aunt, and Butler) and compared them to a baseline (Default) in a between-subject study in real traffic conditions. Our results show higher likability and trust for assistants that correctly match the user's personality while we observed lower likability, trust, satisfaction, and usefulness for incorrectly matched personalities, each in comparison with the Default character. We discuss design aspects for voice assistants in different automotive use cases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In addition, customizing a voice assistant's personality to the user can lead to higher trust [7], while gender does not impact users' trust in a voice assistant [59].”
From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“They found that users found metaphors that were similar to them (in terms of: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN) [51]) were perceived to be more likable and trustworthy.”
From Examining Humanness as a Metaphor to Design Voice User Interfaces (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“A recent survey found that about 31% of users would accept recommendations from conver-sational AI, like ChatGPT, without verifying them.9”
From Examining Humanness as a Metaphor to Design Voice User Interfaces (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Chatbot personality has been shown to affect trust [11,12], engagement [6], subjective satisfaction [13,14], and consumer behavior [6].”
From Interacting with a Chatbot-Based Advising System: Understanding the Effect of Chatbot Personality and User Gender on Behavior (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“Related works show that users trust chatbot personalities similar to theirs [11,58] in the context of voice-based e-commerce and driving assistant chatbot-based applications.”
From Interacting with a Chatbot-Based Advising System: Understanding the Effect of Chatbot Personality and User Gender on Behavior (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quinlan, J. R. (1986) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00116251 · Cited by 21,439
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
Intelligent agents: theory and practice
Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888900008122 · Cited by 6,810
The Uncanny Valley [From the Field]
Mori, M., MacDorman, K., & Kageki, N. (2012) · IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine · doi:10.1109/mra.2012.2192811 · Cited by 3,542
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/191666.191703 · Cited by 2,148
Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire
Laugwitz, B., Held, T., & Schrepp, M. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6 · Cited by 2,114
Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms
Juslin, P. N., & Västfjäll, D. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x08005293 · Cited by 1,914
Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships
Bickmore, T. W., & Picard, R. W. (2005) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1067860.1067867 · Cited by 1,333 · cited 1×
“In related work, Bickmore & Picard show a relational agent capable of social and emotional interaction, which was evaluated with high ratings for trust and likability [4].”
BackgroundLuger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858288 · Cited by 1,176
Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00401.x · Cited by 1,156
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Ignacio Alvarez, Hanan Alnizami, Jerone Dunbar, Andrea Johnson, France Jackson, and Juan E. Gilber. 2011. Designing Driver-Centric Natural Voice User Interfaces. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. online, 156--159.
- 10.5555/362587.374273 · DOI
- Michael Argyle. 1988. Bodily communication (second ed.). Routledge, New York, NY.
- 10.1145/2858036.2858288 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1023/A:1022643204877 · DOI · Paper page
- Andreas Butz Sonja Rümelin, Peter Siegl. 2013. Could You Please... Investigating Cooperation In The Car. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI '13), Eindhoven, The Netherlands, October 2013. (AutomotiveUI '13).
- 10.5555/1708376.1708423 · DOI
- 10.5555/1614164.1614176 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Voice in Human–Agent Interaction: A Survey
Seaborn, K., Miyake, N. P., Pennefather, P., & Otake-Matsuura, M. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3386867 · Cited by 249
Kühne, K., Fischer, M. H., & Zhou, Y. (2020) · Frontiers in Neurorobotics · doi:10.3389/fnbot.2020.593732 · Cited by 138
Wang, Q., Saha, K., Gregori, E., Joyner, D., & Goel, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445645 · Cited by 120
Braun, M., Weber, F., & Alt, F. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3460938 · Cited by 115
Self-citationVoice assistants and older people: some open issues
Sayago, S., Neves, B. B., & Cowan, B. R. (2019) · Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3342775.3342803 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Braun, M., Mainz, A., Chadowitz, R., Pfleging, B., & Alt, F.
- Affiliations
- BMW (Germany) (DE)
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Universität der Bundeswehr München (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-05-02
- Pages
- 1-11
- OpenAlex
- W2941327948
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 8.51
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.tue.nl
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- likeability, trust, user satisfaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
