An Exploratory Study Toward the Preferred Conversational Style for Compatible Virtual Agents

  • Ameneh Shamekhi
  • Mary Czerwinski
  • Gloria Mark
  • Margeigh Novotny
  • Gregory A. Bennett
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10011)


Designing virtual personal assistants that are able to engage users in an interaction have been a challenge for HCI researchers for the past 20 years. In this work we investigated how a set of vocal characteristics known as “conversational style” could play role in engaging users in an interaction with a virtual agent. We also examined whether the similarity attraction principle influences how people orient towards agents with different styles. Results of a within subject experiment on 102 subjects revealed that users exhibited similarity attraction toward computer agents, and preferred the agent whose conversational style matched their own. The study results contribute to our understanding of how the design of intelligent agents’ conversational style influences users’ engagement and perceptions of the agent, compared to known human-to-human interaction.


Virtual agents Conversational style Human-computer interaction Social psychology Interpersonal attraction Similarity attraction 


  1. 1.
    Basso, K.H.: To give up on words: silence in western apache culture. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 26(3), 213–230 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bickmore, T.W., Picard, R.W.: Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM TOCHI. 12(2), 293–327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrne, D., Griffitt, W.: Interpersonal attraction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 24(1), 317–336 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frith, C., Griffitt, W.: Role of facial expressions in social interactions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364(1535), 3453–3458 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilbert, D.T., et al. (eds.): The Handbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, Boston (1998). Distributed exclusively by Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldman, J.A., et al.: Effect of similarity of ego identity status on interpersonal attraction. J. Youth Adolesc. 9(2), 153–162 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gosling, S.D., et al.: A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Personal. 37(6), 504–528 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gratch, J. et al.: Creating rapport with virtual agents. In: Pelachaud, C. et al. (eds.) Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 125–138 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartzler, A.L., et al.: Real-time feedback on nonverbal clinical communication: theoretical framework and clinician acceptance of ambient visual design. Methods Inf. Med. 53(5), 389–405 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopes, P.N., et al.: Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion 5(1), 113–118 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nass, C., Lee, K.M.: Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 7(3), 171–181 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56(1), 81–103 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Payne, J. et al.: Gendering the machine: preferred virtual assistant gender and realism in self-service. In: Aylett, R. et al. (eds.) Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 106–115 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sapir, E., et al.: Ethnology. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schiffrin, D., et al. (eds.): The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell, Malden (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tannen, D.: Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tannen, D. (ed.): Framing in Discourse. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ameneh Shamekhi
    • 1
  • Mary Czerwinski
    • 2
  • Gloria Mark
    • 3
  • Margeigh Novotny
    • 2
  • Gregory A. Bennett
    • 4
  1. 1.College of Computer and Information ScienceNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Microsoft Research One Microsoft Way RedmondRedmondUSA
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  4. 4.Salesforce UXSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations