skip to main content
10.1145/3027063.3053246acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

"Alexa is my new BFF": Social Roles, User Satisfaction, and Personification of the Amazon Echo

Published:06 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Amazon's Echo and its conversational agent Alexa open exciting opportunities for understanding how people perceive and interact with virtual agents. Drawing from user reviews of the Echo posted to Amazon.com, this case study explores the degree to which user reviews indicate personification of the device, sociability level of interactions, factors linked with personification, and influences on user satisfaction. Results indicate marked variance in how people refer to the device, with over half using the personified name Alexa but most referencing the device with object pronouns. Degree of device personification is linked with sociability of interactions: greater personification co-occurs with more social interactions with the Echo. Reviewers mentioning multiple member households are more likely to personify the device than reviewers mentioning living alone. Even after controlling for technical issues, personification predicts user satisfaction with the Echo.

References

  1. Amazon Echo. Amazon.com. Retrieved December 19, 2016 from https://www.amazon.com/AmazonEcho-Bluetooth-Speaker-with-WiFiAlexa/dp/B00X4WHP5EGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Phil Cohen, Adam Cheyer, Eric Horvitz, Rana E. Kaliouby, and Steve Whittaker. 2016. On the future of personal assistants. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'16), 10321037. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Terrence Fong, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2003. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics Autonomous Sys 42, 3: 143--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Chad Gonnerman. 2008. Examining the how and why of anthropomorphism. Metascience 17, 3: 419--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Malte F. Jung. 2017. Affective grounding in humanrobot interaction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM/IEEE International Conference on HumanRobot Interaction. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Minae Kwon, Malte F. Jung, and Ross A. Knepper. Human expectations of social robots. 2016. In Proceedings the Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI '16), 463--464. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Kwan-Min Lee and Clifford Nass. 2005. Socialpsychological origins of feelings of presence: Creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Media Psychol 7, 1: 31--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Andrea Lopez, Alissa Detz, Neda Ratanawongsa, and Urmimala Sarkar. 2012. What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis. J Gen Internal Med 27, 6: 685--692. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. "Like having a really bad PA": the gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 52865297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Susan M. Mudambi and David Schuff. 2010. What makes a helpful review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quart 34 1: 185--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. J Soc Iss 56 1: 81--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Clifford Nass, Youngme Moon, and Paul Carney. 1999. Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. J Appl Soc Psychol 29, 5: 1093--1109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Clifford Nass, Youngme Moon, B. J. Fogg, Byron Reeves, and Chris Dryer. 1995. Can computer personalities be human personalities? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '95), 228--229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, Ellen Tauber, and Heidi Reeder. 1993. Anthropomorphism, agency, and ethopoeia: Computers as social actors. In INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, 111--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sabine Payr. 2013. Virtual butlers and real people: Styles and practices in long-term use of a companion. In R. Trappl (Ed), Your Virtual Butler. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 134--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jun Xiao, John Stasko, and Richard Catrambone. 2004. An empirical study of the effect of agent competence on user performance and perception. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 178--185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. "Alexa is my new BFF": Social Roles, User Satisfaction, and Personification of the Amazon Echo

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      3954 pages
      ISBN:9781450346566
      DOI:10.1145/3027063

      Copyright © 2017 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 May 2017

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI EA '17 Paper Acceptance Rate1,000of5,000submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader