skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

AI-Mediated Communication: Language Use and Interpersonal Effects in a Referential Communication Task

Published:22 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

AI-Mediated Communication (AI-MC) is interpersonal communication that involves an artificially intelligent system that can modify, augment, or even generate content to achieve communicative and relational goals. AI-MC is increasingly involved in human communication and has the potential to impact core aspects of human communication, such as language production, interpersonal perception and task performance. Through a between-subjects experimental design we examine how these processes are influenced when integrating AI-generated language in the form of suggested text responses (Google's smart replies) into a text-based referential communication task. Our study replicates and extends the impacts of a positivity bias in AI-generated language and introduces the adjacency pair framework into the study of AI-MC. We also find preliminary yet mixed evidence to suggest that AI-generated language has the potential to undermine some dimensions of interpersonal perception, such as social attraction. This study contributes important concepts for future work in AI-MC and offers findings with implications for the design of AI systems in human-to-human communication.

References

  1. 2015. Email Statistics Report, 2015--2019. https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Email-Statistics-Report-2015--2019-Executive-Summary.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Kenneth C Arnold, Krysta Chauncey, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2018. Sentiment bias in predictive text recommendations results in biased writing. In Graphics Interface. 8--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Kenneth C Arnold, Krysta Chauncey, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2020. Predictive text encourages predictable writing. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 128--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Diane S Berry, JamesWPennebaker, Jennifer S Mueller, andWendy S Hiller. 1997. Linguistic bases of social perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 5 (1997), 526--537.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Greg Bullock. 2017. Save time with Smart Reply in Gmail. https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/save-time-withsmart- reply-in-gmail/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Judee K Burgoon. 1993. Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12, 1--2 (1993), 30--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Herbert H Clark and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1 (1986), 1--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. John H Connolly, Roel M Vismans, Christopher S Butler, and Richard A Gatward. 2011. Discourse and pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Vol. 18. Walter de Gruyter.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Michael Gamon, and Susan Dumais. 2011. Mark my words! Linguistic style accommodation in social media. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. 745--754.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Roy W Feinson. 1988. Interpretive tone telecommunication method and apparatus. US Patent 4,754,474.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Susan T Fiske, Juan Xu, Amy C Cuddy, and Peter Glick. 1999. (Dis) respecting versus (dis) liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of social issues 55, 3 (1999), 473--489.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Pamela Gibbons, Jon Busch, and James J Bradac. 1991. Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 10, 2 (1991), 115--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Amy L Gonzales, Jeffrey T Hancock, and James W Pennebaker. 2010. Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research 37, 1 (2010), 3--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeffrey T Hancock and Philip J Dunham. 2001. Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes 31, 1 (2001), 91--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-Mediated Communication: Definition, Research Agenda, and Ethical Considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 1 (2020), 89--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Matthew Henderson, Rami Al-Rfou, Brian Strope, Yun-Hsuan Sung, László Lukács, Ruiqi Guo, Sanjiv Kumar, Balint Miklos, and Ray Kurzweil. 2017. Efficient natural language response suggestion for smart reply. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00652 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jess Hohenstein and Malte Jung. 2018. AI-Supported Messaging: An Investigation of Human-Human Text Conversation with AI Support. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jess Hohenstein and Malte Jung. 2020. AI as a moral crumple zone: The effects of AI-mediated communication on attribution and trust. Computers in Human Behavior 106 (2020), 106190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Deborah Son Holoien and Susan T Fiske. 2013. Downplaying positive impressions: Compensation between warmth and competence in impression management. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, 1 (2013), 33--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Clayton J Hutto and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Maurice Jakesch, Megan French, Xiao Ma, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Mor Naaman. 2019. AI-Mediated Communication: How the Perception that Profile Text was Written by AI Affects Trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Emily Jamison and Iryna Gurevych. 2014. Adjacency Pair Recognition in Wikipedia Discussions using Lexical Pairs. In Proceedings of the 28th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computing. 479--488.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Anjuli Kannan, Karol Kurach, Sujith Ravi, Tobias Kaufmann, Andrew Tomkins, Balint Miklos, Greg Corrado, Laszlo Lukacs, Marina Ganea, Peter Young, et al. 2016. Smart reply: Automated response suggestion for email. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 955--964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. James C McCroskey and Thomas A McCain. 1974. The measurement of interpersonal attraction. (1974).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Joseph Edward McGrath. 1984. Groups: Interaction and performance. Vol. 14. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. James W Pennebaker, Ryan L Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn. 2015. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin J Pickering and Simon Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and brain sciences 36, 4 (2013), 329--347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Emanuel A Schegloff and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8, 4 (1973), 289--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Tom Simonite. 2020. As Machines Get Smarter, How Will We Relate to Them? https://www.wired.com/story/asmachines-get-smarter-how-will-we-relate-to-them/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yue Weng, Huaixiu Zheng, Franziska Bell, and Gokhan Tur. 2019. OCC: A Smart Reply System for Efficient In-App Communications. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2596--2603.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. AI-Mediated Communication: Language Use and Interpersonal Effects in a Referential Communication Task

    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

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!