Advertisement

Smart TV Study—System Errors

  • Patrick EhrenbrinkEmail author
Chapter
Part of the T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services book series (TLABS)

Abstract

Part IV of this work investigates factors which influence state reactance and the effect that state reactance has on interaction. The first study investigated state reactance as a consequence of system errors. System errors were the only item on the list of identified situations from the expert survey, described in Chap.  5, that has not been investigated in the context of human–computer interaction in the literature before. The study measured state reactance and acceptability of a smart television set (TV) that could be controlled via voice commands. The smart TV was able to display several steps of the processing chain of a command via different feedback types. Conditions were manipulated in a way, that artificial errors were introduced. In one error condition, the error could be identified as an interpretation error. In another error condition, the interpretation was correct and participants could not explain why the error had occurred. Results show that participants experience significantly higher levels of state reactance when the smart TV produced errors. However, when the participants could understand why the error had occurred, their state reactance levels were lower, compared to when they could not. This trend is also visible in the ratings of acceptability, which highly correlated with the state reactance ratings.

References

  1. 1.
    Bortz, J.: Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brehm, J.W.: A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press, New York (1966)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brehm, S.S., Brehm, J.W.: Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. Academic Press, New York (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caplan, B., Kreutzer, J.S., DeLuca, J.: Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology; With 199 Figures and 139 Tables. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dillard, J.P., Shen, L.: On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Commun. Monogr. 72(2), 144–168 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrenbrink, P., Gong, X.G., Möller, S.: Implications of different feedback types on error perception and psychological reactance. In: Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, OzCHI ’16, pp. 358–362. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3010915.3010994
  7. 7.
    IBM Corp.: Ibm spss Statistics for Windows: Armonk. IBM Corp, NY (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Telecommunication Union: Subjective quality evaluation of telephone services based on spoken dialogue systems. Tech. Rep. Supplement 851 to P-Series Recommendations, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Möller, S., Smeele, P., Boland, H., Krebber, J.: Evaluating spoken dialogue systems according to de-facto standards: A case study. Comput. Speech Lang. 21, 26–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schäfer, T.: Statistik I: Deskriptive und Explorative Datenanalyse, vol. 1. VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92446-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stadtler, T.: Lexikon der Psychologie. Alfred Kroner Verlag (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tukey, J.W.: Exploratory data analysis 1, (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Werder (Havel)Germany

Personalised recommendations