Prestige Questions, Online Agents, and Gender-Driven Differences in Disclosure

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)

Abstract

This work considers the possibility of using virtual agents to encourage disclosure for sensitive information. In particular, this research used “prestige questions”, which asked participants to disclose information relevant to their socioeconomic status, such as credit limit, as well as university attendance, and mortgage or rent payments they could afford. We explored the potential for agents to enhance disclosure compared to conventional web-forms, due to their ability to serve as relational agents by creating rapport. To consider this possibility, agents were framed as artificially intelligent versus avatars controlled by a real human, and we compared these conditions to a version of the financial questionnaire with no agent. In this way, both the perceived agency of the agent and its ability to generate rapport were tested. Additionally, we examined the differences in disclosure between men and women in these conditions. Analyses reveled that agents (either AI- or human-framed) evoked greater disclosure compared to the no agent condition. However, there was some evidence that human-framed agents evoked greater lying. Thus, users in general responded more socially to the presence of a human- or AI-framed agent, and the benefits and costs of this approach were made apparent. The results are discussed in terms of rapport and anonymity.

Keywords

Virtual agents Human-Agent experimentation Disclosure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maguire, P., et al.: Helping cancer patients disclose their concerns. European Journal of Cancer 32(1), 78–81 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gabler, N.: The Secret Shame of Middle-Class Americans. The Atlantic, May 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bickmore, T., Cassell, J.: Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larson, R.F., Leslie, G.R.: Prestige influences in serious dating relationships of university students. Social Forces 47(2), 195–202 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rogers, E.M., Havens, A.E.: Prestige rating and mate selection on a college campus. Marriage and Family Living 22(1), 55–59 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacKinnon, N.J., Langford, T.: The meaning of occupational prestige scores. The Sociological Quarterly 35(2), 215–245 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bickmore, T., Cassell, J.: Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Metzger, M.J.: Privacy, trust, and disclosure: Exploring barriers to electronic commerce. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 9(4) (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lucas, G.M., et al.: It’s only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior 37, 94–100 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moon, Y.: Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 26(4), 323–339 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bose, R.: Customer relationship management: key components for IT success. Industrial Management & Data Systems 102(2), 89–97 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fawcett, P.E., Blomfield-Brown, C.: System and method for providing automated customer support. U.S. Patent No. 5,678,002, Oct. 14, 1997Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gratch, J., Wang, N., Gerten, J., Fast, E., Duffy, R.: Creating rapport with virtual agents. In: Pelachaud, C., Martin, J.-C., André, E., Chollet, G., Karpouzis, K., Pelé, D. (eds.) IVA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4722, pp. 125–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74997-4_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burgoon, J.K., Guerrero, L.K., Floyd, K.: Nonverbal communication. Routledge (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall, J.A., Harrigan, J.A., Rosenthal, R.: Nonverbal behavior in clinician—patient interaction. Applied and Preventive Psychology 4(1), 21–37 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Vault, D., et al.: SimSensei Kiosk: a virtual human interviewer for healthcare decision support. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gratch, J., et al.: Creating rapport with virtual agents. International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weisband, S., Kiesler, S.: Self disclosure on computer forms: meta-analysis and implications. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Smith, V.L.: Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review 86(3), 653–660 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Howell, M., Love, S., Turner, M.: User characteristics and performance with automated mobile phone systems. International Journal of Mobile Communications 6(1), 1–15 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Evers, C., et al.: Anger and social appraisal: a “spicy” sex difference? Emotion 5(3), 258 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krämer, N.C., et al.: Closing the gender gap in STEM with friendly male instructors? On the effects of rapport behavior and gender of a virtual agent in an instructional interaction. Computers & Education 99, 1–13 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buss, D.M., Schmitt, D.P.: Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review 100(2), 204 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toma, C.L., Hancock, J.T., Ellison, N.B.: Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(8), 1023–1036 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buss, D.M.: Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(1), 1–14 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.USC Institute for Creative TechnologiesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations