Although users’ expectations of a chatbot’s performance could greatly shape their interaction experience, they have been underexplored in the context of social support where chatbots are gaining popularity. A 2 × 2 experiment created expectancy violation and confirmation conditions by matching or mismatching a chatbot’s expertise label (expert vs. non-expert) and its interactional contingency (contingent vs. generic feedback to users). Contingent feedback from chatbots was found to have positive effects on participants’ evaluation of the bot and their perceived emotional validation, regardless of the bot’s expertise label. When providing generic feedback to participants, a bot received worse evaluation and induced less emotional validation on participants when it was labeled as an expert, rather than a non-expert, highlighting the detrimental effect of negative expectancy violation than negative expectancy confirmation in interactions with a social support chatbot. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AraujoT. (2018). Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.051
2.
BordinE. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085885
3.
BrandtzægP. B.FølstadA. (2018). Chatbots: Changing user needs and motivations. Interactions, 25(5), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236669
4.
BrandtzægP. B.SkjuveM.Kristoffer DystheK. K.FølstadA. (2021). When the social becomes non-human: Young people’s perception of social support in chatbots [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445318
5.
BrennanS. E. (1998). The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In FussellS. R.KreuzR. J. (Eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BrennanS. E.HulteenE. A. (1995). Interaction and feedback in a spoken language system: A theoretical framework. Knowledge-Based Systems, 8(2–3), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(95)98376
7.
BurlesonB. R. (2003). Emotional support skills. In GreeneJ. O.BurlesonB. R. (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551–594). Erlbaum.
8.
BurgoonJ. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
9.
BurgoonJ. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In BergerC. R.RoloffM. E.WilsonS. R.DillardJ. P.CaughlinJ.SolomonD. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi,org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102
10.
BurgoonJ. K.BonitoJ. A.LowryP. B.HumpherysS. L.MoodyG. D.GaskinJ. E.GiboneyJ. S. (2016). Application of expectancy violations theory to communication with and judgments about embodied agents during a decision-making task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 91, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.02.002
11.
BurgoonJ. K.Le PoireB. A. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00316.x
12.
BurgoonJ. K.JohnsonM. L.KochP. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communications Monographs, 65(4), 308–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376456
BurgoonM.MillerG. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In GilesH.St. ClairR. N. (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 199–229). Routledge.
15.
BurlesonB. R.AlbrechtT. L.SarasonI. G. (Eds.). (1994). Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community. Sage.
16.
BurlesonB. R.MacGeorgeE. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 374–424). Sage.
17.
ChoM.LeeS.LeeK.-P. (2019). Once a kind friend is now a thing: Understanding how conversational agents at home are forgotten [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference, San Diego, CA (pp. 1557–1569). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322332
18.
ClarkH. H.BrennanS. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006
CowanB. R.PantidiN.CoyleD.MorrisseyK.ClarkeP.Al-ShehriS.EarleyD.BandeiraN. (2017). “What can I help you with?”: Infrequent users’ experiences of intelligent personal assistants [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, Vienna, Austria (Vol. 43, pp. 1–12). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322332
21.
De GennaroM.KrumhuberE. G.LucasG. (2020). Effectiveness of an empathic chatbot in combating adverse effects of social exclusion on mood. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3061. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03061
22.
DibitontoM.LeszczynskaK.TazziF.MedagliaC. M. (2018). Chatbot in a campus environment: Design of LiSA, a virtual assistant to help students in their university life [Conference session]. Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Technologies: 20th International Conference, HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15–20, 2018, Proceedings, Part III 20 (pp. 103–116). Springer International Publishing.
23.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2003). The perceived credibility of personal web page information as influenced by the sex of the source. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 683–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00021-9
24.
FoggB. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002, 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/764008.763957
GoE.SundarS. S. (2019). Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.020
27.
GuzmanA. L.LewisS. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
28.
HoA.HancockJ.MinerA. S. (2018). Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 712–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy026
29.
HongJ. W.PengQ.WilliamsD. (2021). Are you ready for artificial Mozart and Skrillex? An experiment testing expectancy violation theory and AI music. New Media & Society, 23(7), 1920–1935. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820925798
JainM.KumarP.KotaR.PatelS. N. (2018, June). Evaluating and informing the design of chatbots [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference, Hong Kong, China (pp. 895–906). https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196735
32.
JohnsonG. J.BrunerG. CIIKumarA. (2006). Interactivity and its facets revisited: Theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367350403
33.
KelleyJ. F. (1984). An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 2(1), 26–41.
34.
KimK. J. (2014). Can smartphones be specialists? Effects of specialization in mobile advertising. Telematics and Informatics, 4(31), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.12.003
35.
KimK. J. (2016). Interacting socially with the Internet of Things (IoT): Effects of source attribution and specialization in human–IoT interaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(6), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12177
LeeS.ChoiJ. (2017). Enhancing user experience with conversational agent for movie recommendation: Effects of self-disclosure and reciprocity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 103, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.005
38.
LeeS. A.LiangY. (2015). Reciprocity in computer–human interaction: Source-based, norm-based, and affect-based explanations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(4), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0458
39.
LeshnerG.ReevesB.NassC. (1998). Switching channels: The effects of television channels on the mental representations of television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159809364432
40.
LewZ.WaltherJ. B. (2023). Social scripts and expectancy violations: Evaluating communication with human or AI chatbot interactants. Media Psychology, 26(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2022.2084111
41.
LewZ.WaltherJ. B.PangA.ShinW. (2018). Interactivity in online chat: conversational contingency and response latency in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(4), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy009
42.
LiewT. W.TanS.-M. (2018). Exploring the effects of specialist versus generalist embodied virtual agents in a multi-product category online store. Telematics Informatics, 35(1), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.005
43.
LiewT. W.TanS. M. (2021). Social cues and implications for designing expert and competent artificial agents: A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 65, 101721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101721
44.
LiuB.SundarS. S. (2018). Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 21(10), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0110
45.
LucasG. M.RizzoA.GratchJ.SchererS.StratouG.BobergJ.MorencyL. P. (2017). Reporting mental health symptoms: breaking down barriers to care with virtual human interviewers. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 51. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00051
46.
LugerE.SellenA. (2016). “Like having a really bad PA” The gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA (pp. 5286–5297). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858288
47.
ManusovV.WinchatzM. R.ManningL. M. (1997). Acting out our minds: Incorporating behavior into models of stereotype-based expectancies for cross-cultural interactions. Communications Monographs, 64(2), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759709376410
48.
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
49.
MengJ.DaiY. N. (2021). Emotional support from AI chatbots: Should a supportive partner self-disclose or not?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(4), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab005
50.
MengJ.RheuM.ZhangY.DaiY.PengW. (2023). Mediated social support for distress reduction: AI Chatbots vs. Human. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579505
MitchellE.MamykinaL. (2021, May). From the curtain to Kansas: Conducting Wizard-of-Oz studies in the wild [Conference session]. Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan (pp. 1–6). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3443446
53.
MorrisR. R.KouddousK.KshirsagarR.SchuellerS. M. (2018). Towards an artificially empathic conversational agent for mental health applications: System design and user perceptions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(6), e10148. https://doi.org/10.2196/10148
54.
MossE. G. (1973). Illness, immunity, and social interaction. John Wiley & Sons.
55.
MouY.XuK. (2017). The media inequality: Comparing the initial human-human and human-AI social interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.067
56.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
NormanD. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. Doubleday.
59.
PauwL. S.SauterD. A.van KleefG. A.LucasG. M.GratchJ.FischerA. H. (2022). The avatar will see you now: Support from a virtual human provides socio-emotional benefits. Computers in Human Behavior, 136, 107368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107368
60.
RainsS. A.AkersC.PavlichC. A.TsetsiE.AppelbaumM. (2019). Examining the quality of social support messages produced face-to-face and in computer-mediated communication: The effects of hyperpersonal communication. Communication Monographs, 86(3), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1595076
61.
RainsS. A.PavlichC. A.LutovskyB.TsetsiE.AshtaputreA. (2020). Support seeker expectations, support message quality, and supportive interaction processes and outcomes: The case of the comforting computer program revisited. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(2), 647–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519876359
62.
RafaeliS. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In HawkinsR.WiemannJ. M.PingreeS. (Eds.), Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science (Vol. 16, pp. 110–134). Sage.
ReevesB.NassC. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications.
65.
RheuM.ShinJ. Y.PengW.Huh-YooJ. (2021). Systematic review: Trust-building factors and implications for conversational agent design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1807710
66.
RichardsonL. P.ZhouC.GershE.SpielvogleH.TaylorJ. A.McCartyC. A. (2019). Effect of electronic screening with personalized feedback on adolescent health risk behaviors in a primary care setting: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 2(5), e193581. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3581.
67.
SahY. J.YooB.SundarS. S. (2011). Are specialist robots better than generalist robots? [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Lausanne, Switzerland (pp. 241–242). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957751
68.
SkjuveM.FølstadA.FostervoldK. I.BrandtzaegP. B. (2021). My chatbot companion - A study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601
69.
SundarS. S.BellurS.OhJ.JiaH.KimH.-S. (2016). Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer Interaction: Effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Research, 43(5), 595–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534962
70.
TaV.GriffithC.BoatfieldC.WangX.CivitelloM.BaderH.DeCeroE.LoggarakisA. (2020). User experiences of social support from companion chatbots in everyday contexts: Thematic analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3), e16235. https://doi.org/10.2196/16235
71.
van WezelM. M. C.CroesE. A. J.AnthenisM. L. (2021). “I’m here for you”: Can social chatbots truly support their users? A literature review. In FolstadA.AraujoT.PapadopoulosS.LawE.LugerE.GoodwinM.BrandtzaegP. B. (Eds.), Chatbot Research and Design, 4th International Workshop, Conversations 2020 (pp. 96–113). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68288-0_7
72.
WangL.WangD.TianF.PengZ.FanX.ZhangZ.MaS.YuM.MaX.WangH. (2021). Cass: Towards building a social-support chatbot for online health community. In NicolsJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction: Volume 5, Issue CSCW1 (pp. 1–31). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449083
73.
WienrichC.ReitelbachC.CarolusA. (2021). The trustworthiness of voice assistants in the context of healthcare investigating the effect of perceived expertise on the trustworthiness of voice assistants, providers, data receivers, and automatic speech recognition. Frontiers in Computer Science, 3, 53. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2021.685250
74.
ZhouM. X.WangC.MarkG.YangH.XuK. (2019, March20). Building real-world chatbot interviewers: Lessons from a Wizard-of-Oz field study. IUI Workshops, Los Angeles, CA.
