Jingyi Li
ABSTRACT
We present an intelligent virtual interviewer that engages with a user in a text-based conversation and automatically infers the user's psychological traits, such as personality. We investigate how the personality of a virtual interviewer influences a user's behavior from two perspectives: the user's willingness to confide in, and listen to, a virtual interviewer. We have developed two virtual interviewers with distinct personalities and deployed them in a real-world recruiting event. We present findings from completed interviews with 316 actual job applicants. Notably, users are more willing to confide in and listen to a virtual interviewer with a serious, assertive personality. Moreover, users' personality traits, inferred from their chat text, influence their perception of a virtual interviewer, and their willingness to confide in and listen to a virtual interviewer. Finally, we discuss the implications of our work on building hyper- personalized, intelligent agents based on user traits.
- Adali, S., & Golbeck, J. Predicting personality with social behavior. ASONAM'2012, 302--309. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bickmore, T., Gruber, A., & Picard, R. Establishing the computer-patient working alliance in automated health behavior change interventions. Patient Education and Counseling, 2005, 59(1): 21--30.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bickmore, T. & Cassell, J. Small talk and conversational storytelling in embodied interface agents. AAAI Fall Symposium on Narrative Intelligence, 1999.Google Scholar
- Bouchet, F. & Sansonnet, J. Intelligent Agents with Personality: from Adjectives to Behavioral Schemes. In E. M. Alkhalifa & K. Gaid (Eds.), Cognitively Informed Interfaces: System Design and Development, 2012, 177--200. IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Brown, P. & Levinson, S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cialdini R. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. 2006. Harper Business.Google Scholar
- Cronbach L.Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16 (3): 297--334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- de Ayala, R. J. The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory, Guilford Press. 2009.Google Scholar
- Dempster, A., Laird. N., & Rubin, D. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. Royal Statistical Society, 39(1): 1--38, 1977.Google Scholar
- Digman, J. M. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 1990, 41(1): 417--440.Google Scholar
- Gebhard, P., Baur, T., Damian, I., Mehlmann, G., Wagner, J. & André, E. Exploring interaction strategies for virtual characters to induce stress in simulated job interviews. AAMAS 2014: 661--668. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gludice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. The distance between mars and venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. Pub. Library of Sci. 2012, 7(1).Google Scholar
- Grosz, B. & Sidner, C. Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3): 175--204. 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gou, L., Zhou, M.X., & Yang, H. KnowMe and ShareMe: Understanding automatically discovered personality traits from social media and user sharing preferences. CHI '14, 955--964. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Havens L. Making Contact: Uses of Language in Psychotherapy, Harvard University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
- Helgoe, L. Introvert Power: Why Your Inner Life Is Your Hidden Strength. Sourcebooks, 2013, 2nd Ed.Google Scholar
- Hopcroft, J., An nlogn algorithm for minimizing states in a finite automaton, Theory of machines and computations, Academic Press, 189--196, 1971.Google Scholar
- Hu, R., Pu, P.: Enhancing collaborative filtering systems with personality information. RecSys '2011 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jackle, A., Lynn, P., Sinibaldi, J., & Tippping, S. The effect of interviewer experience, attitudes, personality, and skills on respondent cooperation with face-to-face surveys. Survey Research Methods, 2013, 7(1): 1--15.Google Scholar
- Jones, H., Sabouret, N., Damian, I., Baur, T., André, E., Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Rizzo, P. Interpreting social cues to generate credible affective reactions of virtual job interviewers. CoRR abs/1402.5039 (2014).Google Scholar
- Kern, M., Eichstaedt, J., Schwartz, A., Dziurzynski, L., Ungar, L., Stillwell D., Kosinski, M., Ramones, S., & Seligman M. The online social self: An open vocabulary approach to personality. J. of Assessment, 2013, 21(2),158--169.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Koda, T. & Maes, P. Agents with faces: The effects of personification of agents. Proc. HCI'96, 98--103.Google Scholar
- Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proc. National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 2013, 110(15), 5802--5805.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laird, J.E. The Soar Cognitive Architecture, MIT Press, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, K., Peng, W., Jin, S., & Yan, C. Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction. J. Comm., 2006, 56, 754--772.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee, K., Mahmud, J., Chen, J., and Zhou, M.X. & Nichols, J. Who will retweet this? Automatically Identifying and Engaging Strangers on Twitter to Spread Information. IUI 2014: 247--256. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lucas, G., Gratch, J., King, A., & Morency, L. It's only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Comp. in Human Behavior, 2014, 37: 94--100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Luo, L., Wang, F., Zhou, M.X., Pan, Y. & Chen, H. Who have got answers? Growing the pool of answerers in a smart enterprise social QA system. IUI'2014, 7-- 16. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mahmud, J., Zhou, M.X., Megiddo, N., Nichols, J. & Drews, C. Recommending targeted strangers from whom to solicit information on social media. IUI 2013: 37--48. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mairesse, F., Walker, M. A., Mehl, M. R., & Moore, R. K. Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text. JAIR, 2007, 30: 457--500. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 709--734.Google Scholar
- Mehlmann, G., Janowski, K., & André, E. Modeling Grounding for Interactive Social Companions. KI 2016, 30(1): 45--52.Google Scholar
- Okun, B. Effective Helping: Interviewing and Counseling Techniques. 7th Edition, Cengage Learning, 2007.Google Scholar
- Paulhus, D. L. Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes 1991, vol. 1, 17--59. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Pennebaker, J. & King, L. Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. J. Personality Social Psychology, 1999, 77(6): 1296--1312.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Powers, A., Kiesler, S., & Goetz, J. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve humanrobot cooperation. The 12th IEEE Intl. Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003, vol., IXX, 55--60.Google Scholar
- Reeves, B. & Nass, C. The Media Equation. CSLI Publications, 2002.Google Scholar
- Sansonnet, J. & Bouchet, F. Managing personality influences in dialogical agents. In Proc. ICAART 2013, Vol. 1, 89--98.Google Scholar
- Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J., & Waters, K. When the interface is a face. J. Human-Computer Interaction, 1996, vol. 11, 97--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tapus, A., Tapus, C., & Mataric, M. User-robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Intelligent Service Robotics, 2008, 1:169--183.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tausczik, Y. & Pennebaker, J. The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods. J. of Language and Social Psychology, 2010, 29(1): 24--54.Google Scholar
- Tintarev, N, Dennis, M., & Masthoff, J. Adapting Recommendation Diversity to Openness to Experience: A Study of Human Behavior. UMAP 2013: 190--202.Google Scholar
- Turk, M. Multimodal interaction: A review. Pattern Recognition Letters 36: 189--195 (2014). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Uziel, L. Impression management ("lie") scales are associated with interpersonally oriented self-control, not other deception. Journal of Personality, 2013, 82(3): 200--212.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wallace, R., Tomabechi, H., & Aimless, D. Chatterbots Go Native: Considerations for an eco-system fostering the development of artificial life forms in a human world. http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/pics/chatterbotsgonative.doc. 2007.Google Scholar
- Weisberg, Y., DeYoung, C., & Hirsh, J. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of Big Five. J. Front Psychology, 2011, 2:178.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Weizenbaum, J. ELIZA -- a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Comm. of the ACM, 1966, 9:36--45. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wexelblat, A. Don't make that face: a report on anthropomorphizing and interface. AAAI'98 173--179.Google Scholar
- Yarkoni, T. Personality in 100,000 words: A largescale analysis of personality and word usage among bloggers. J. Res. in Personality, 2010, 44(3): 363--373.Google Scholar
- Yu, R., Liu, Y., & Yang, M. Does interviewer personality matter for survey outcomes' Proc. 64th Annual Conference on World Association for Public Opinion Research, 2011.Google Scholar
- Ziegler, M., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. (editors). New perspectives on faking in personality assessment. 2010, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Confiding in and Listening to Virtual Agents: The Effect of Personality
Recommendations
Trusting Virtual Agents: The Effect of Personality
Special Issue on Highlights of ACM IUI 2017We present artificial intelligent (AI) agents that act as interviewers to engage with a user in a text-based conversation and automatically infer the user's personality traits. We investigate how the personality of an AI interviewer and the inferred ...
Chatbot Acceptance: A Latent Profile Analysis on Individuals' Trust in Conversational Agents
SIGMIS-CPR '19: Proceedings of the 2019 on Computers and People Research ConferenceAccording to industry reports, the lack of trust in non-human interaction prevents widespread Chatbot acceptance. Since the willingness and the ability to trust varies between individuals, this study examines to what extent the trust in Chatbots varies ...
Influence of personality traits on users’ viewing behaviour
Different views on the role of personal factors in moderating individual viewing behaviour exist. This study examined the impact of personality traits on individual viewing behaviour of facial stimulus. A total of 96 students (46 males and 50 females, ...
Comments