Cited by 14Social Robot Interaction and HRIPsychological Testing and AssessmentAI in Service Interactions

The use of voice assistant for psychological assessment elicits empathy and engagement while maintaining good psychometric properties

Open access
Mancone, Stefania, Diotaiuti, Pierluigi, Valente, Giuseppe, Corrado, Stefano, Bellizzi, Fernando, Vilarino, Guilherme Torres, Andrade, Alexandro·2023·Behavioral Sciences

Abstract

This study aimed to use the Alexa vocal assistant as an administerer of psychometric tests, assessing the efficiency and validity of this measurement. A total of 300 participants were administered the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). After a week, the administration was repeated, but the participants were randomly divided into groups of 100 participants each. In the first, the test was administered by means of a paper version; in the second, the questionnaire was read to the participants in person, and the operator contemporaneously recorded the answers declared by the participants; in the third group, the questionnaire was directly administered by the Alexa voice device, after specific reprogramming. The third group was also administered, as a post-session survey, the Engagement and Perceptions of the Bot Scale (EPVS), a short version of the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI), the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS), and an additional six items to measure degrees of concentration, ease, and perceived pressure at the beginning and at the end of the administration. The results confirmed that the IRI did keep measurement invariance within the three conditions. The administration through vocal assistant showed an empathic activation effect significantly superior to the conditions of pencil-paper and operator-in-presence. The results indicated an engagement and positive evaluation of the interactive experience, with reported perceptions of closeness, warmth, competence, and human-likeness associated with higher values of empathetic activation and lower values of personal discomfort.

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 · 10.3390/bs13070550

Cites

85 of 85 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?

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

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [80]Liang K.H. Shi W. Oh Y. Wang H.C. Zhang J. Yu Z. Dialoging Resonance: How Users Perceive, Reciprocate and React to Chatbot’s Self-Disclosure in Conversational Recommendations arXiv 2022 2106.01666
  2. [82]Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd ed. Routledge New York, NY, USA 1988
  3. [90]Fung P. Bertero D. Wan Y. Dey A. Chan R.H. Bin Siddique F. Yang Y. Wu C.S. Lin R. Towards empathetic human-robot interactions Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing Springer International Publishing New York, NY, USA 2018 173 193
  4. [93]Feine J. Gnewuch U. Morana S. Maedche A. Gender bias in chatbot design Chatbot Research and Design: Third International Workshop, CONVERSATIONS 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19–20 November 2019, Revised Selected Papers 3 Springer International Publishing New York, NY, USA 2018 79 93

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mancone, S., Diotaiuti, P., Valente, G., Corrado, S., Bellizzi, F., Vilarino, G. T., & Andrade, A.
Affiliations
  • Università degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale (IT)
  • Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (BR)
Corresponding author
Diotaiuti, Pierluigi
Venue
Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-07-02
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
550
ISSN
2076-328X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4382983091
Cited by
14
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4
FWCI
4.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi di Cassino (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Università degli Studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
voice assistants, Amazon Alexa, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, empathy, participant engagement, measurement invariance, psychometric properties, human-likeness, social desirability

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