Cited by 37Team Dynamics and PerformanceSocial Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service Interactions

IntroBot: Exploring the Use of Chatbot-assisted Familiarization in Online Collaborative Groups

Open access
Shin, Donghoon, Kim, Soomin, Shang, Ruoxi, Lee, Joonhwan, Hsieh, Gary·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Many people gather online and form teams with strangers to collaborate on tasks. However, while intrateam trust and cohesion are critical for team performance, such characteristics take time to establish and are harder to build up through computer-mediated communication. Building on prior research that has shown that enhancing familiarity between members can help, we hypothesized that the use of a chatbot to support the familiarization of ad hoc teammates can help their collaboration. As such, we designed IntroBot, a chatbot that builds on an online discussion facilitator framework and leverages the social media data of users to assist their familiarization process. Through a between-subjects study (N=60), we found that participants who used IntroBot reported higher levels of trust, cohesion, and interaction quality, as well as generated more ideas in a collaborative brainstorming task. We discuss insights gained from our study, and present opportunities for the future of chatbot-assisted collaboration.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3544548.3580930

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Prior CHI studies have investigated potential scenarios of interacting with multi-party based chatbots as well as diverse roles of chatbots and their positive impact on familiarization among teammates, generating more ideas and diverse views, and nudging silent people to speak up.

    “prior CHI studies [43, 50, 77, 79, 93] have investigated potential scenarios of interacting with multi-party based chatbots [77] as well as diverse roles of chatbots and their positive impact on familiarization among teammates [79], generating more ideas and diverse views [43, 50, 79], and nudging silent people to speak up [43].”

    From The Promise and Peril of ChatGPT in Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Design Implications (2024) · cites this paper as [79]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. S.A. Beebe and J.T. Masterson. 2015. Communicating in Small Groups: Principles and Practices, Updated Edition. Pearson Education.
  2. Kenneth A Bollen and Rick H Hoyle. 1990. Perceived Cohesion: A Conceptual and Empirical Examination. Social Forces 69, 2 (1990), 479-504. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/sf/69.2.479 · DOI
  3. John Chapin. 2001. Bridging the Gap Between Perception and Behavior: Psycho- logical Distance in First-Person Perception. In AEJMC Conference, Mass Commu- nication and Society Division, Vol. 2.
  4. Carlene Lebeuf, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Alexey Zagalsky. 2017. How Soft- ware Developers Mitigate Collaboration Friction with Chatbots. In CSCW 2017 Workshop on Talking with Conversational Agents in Collaborative Action.
  5. Naomi McGrath, Sue Gregory, Helen Farley, and Pauline Roberts. 2014. Tools of the trade: Breaking the ice with virtual tools in online learning. In Proceedings of the 31st Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference (ASCILITE 2014). Macquarie University, 470-474.
  6. Eunjeong L Park and Sungzoon Cho. 2014. KoNLPy: Korean natural language processing in Python. In Annual Conference on Human and Language Technology. Human and Language Technology, 133-136. https://koreascience.kr/article/ CFKO201408355727285.page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shin, D., Kim, S., Shang, R., Lee, J., & Hsieh, G.
Affiliations
  • Human Centered Design and Engineering, University of Washington, United States
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-04-19
Pages
1-13
OpenAlex
W4366548718
Cited by
37
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
18.51
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
chatbots, online collaboration, ad hoc teams, trust, team cohesion, computer-mediated communication, discussion facilitation, social media data, brainstorming, interaction quality

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