“He shouldn't have put it that way!” How face threats and mitigation strategies affect person perception in online tutoring

Brummernhenrich, Benjamin; Jucks, Regina

doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1070957

Cited by 12 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The only differences between our two experimental conditions were in the "how" part of the contribution, with rather rude or polite answers. The results mostly mirror those obtained with judgments of humans [12,30]. These studies suggest that although both content and social information are transmitted with the same words, recipients seem to distinguish these two aspects; we routinely tease apart the "how" and "what" part of a contribution.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Student Evaluations of a (Rude) Spoken Dialogue System Insights from an Experimental Study

Jucks¹,

Linnemann²,

Brummernhenrich³

2018

Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communicating with spoken dialogue systems (SDS) such as Apple’s Siri® and Google’s Now is becoming more and more common. We report a study that manipulates an SDS’s word use with regard to politeness. In an experiment, 58 young adults evaluated the spoken messages of our self-developed SDS as it replied to typical questions posed by university freshmen. The answers were either formulated politely or rudely. Dependent measures were both holistic measures of how students perceived the SDS as well as detailed evaluations of each single answer. Results show that participants not only evaluated the content of rude answers as being less appropriate and less pleasant than the polite answers, but also evaluated the rude system as less accurate. Lack of politeness also impacted aspects of the perceived trustworthiness of the SDS. We conclude that users of SDS expect such systems to be polite, and we then discuss some practical implications for designing SDS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…In human communication, politeness improves social perceptions. Polite speakers appear more likable and recipient oriented [30,31]. Some studies have also shown effects on attributes such as perceived integrity or competence [32].…”

Section: Human-like Interaction? Empirical Research On the Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Evaluations of a (Rude) Spoken Dialogue System Insights from an Experimental Study

Jucks¹,

Linnemann²,

Brummernhenrich³

2018

Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, the data show that, as expected, the content-related terminological variations impinge upon participants' understanding of the content. Further, politeness did positively influence some social perceptions, albeit on fewer dimensions than we expected and less than in previous research (Brummernhenrich and Jucks, 2016;Jucks et al, 2016;Linnemann et al, 2014).…”

Section: Summary Of Resultscontrasting

confidence: 62%

“…We found in our own research that whether a message is phrased politely or bluntly mostly influences social perceptions of the sender, such as an instructor’s likability or goodwill, but also perceptions of the message as appropriate. The degree of politeness did not, however, affect content-related impressions, such as subjective impressions of learning, perceived clarity of the instruction, or the instructor’s competence ( Brummernhenrich and Jucks, 2016 ; Jucks et al, 2016 ; Linnemann et al, 2014 ). In contrast, other research has found that polite communicators do appear more competent and trustworthy than neutral or rude ones ( Jessmer and Anderson, 2001 ; Trad et al., 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Get the shot, now!” Disentangling content-related and social cues in physician–patient communication

Brummernhenrich

Jucks

2019

Health Psychology Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated how recipients disentangle social and content-related cues in physicians’ communication. We presented 53 students with four different statements by physicians concerning the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. In a 2 × 2 within-subject design, we manipulated politeness and the use of technical terms. We expected politeness variations to mainly affect social perceptions, whereas terminology should mainly affect perceptions of the content. However, politeness did not affect most judgments, whereas terminology influenced more social perceptions than expected. We argue that these variations differentially affect perceptions of fulfillment of basic communion and agency needs. We derive possible implications for physician–patient communication and other contexts.

show abstract

Expecting politeness: perceptions of voice assistant politeness

Duffau,

Fox Tree

2024

Pers Ubiquit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined how politeness perception can change when used by a human or voice assistant in different contexts. We conducted two norming studies and two experiments. In the norming studies, we assessed the levels of positive politeness (cooperation) and negative politeness (respecting autonomy) conveyed by a range of politeness strategies across task (Norming Study 1) and social (Norming Study 2) request types. In the experiments, we tested the effect of request type and imposition level on the perception of written requests (Experiment 1) and requests spoken by a voice assistant (Experiment 2). We found that the perception of politeness strategies varied by request type. Positive politeness strategies were rated as very polite with task requests. In contrast, both positive and negative politeness strategies were rated as very polite with social requests. We also found that people expect agents to respect their autonomy more than they expect them to cooperate. Detailed studies of how request context interacts with politeness strategies to affect politeness perception have not previously been reported. Technology designers might find Tables 4 and 5 in this report especially useful for determining what politeness strategies are most appropriate for a given situation as well as what politeness strategies will evoke the desired feeling (autonomy or cooperation).

show abstract

“He shouldn't have put it that way!” How face threats and mitigation strategies affect person perception in online tutoring

Cited by 12 publications

References 41 publications

Student Evaluations of a (Rude) Spoken Dialogue System Insights from an Experimental Study

Student Evaluations of a (Rude) Spoken Dialogue System Insights from an Experimental Study

“Get the shot, now!” Disentangling content-related and social cues in physician–patient communication

Expecting politeness: perceptions of voice assistant politeness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About