4.7 Article

Revealing sensitive information in personal interviews: Is self-disclosure easier with humans or avatars and under what conditions?

Journal

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volume 65, Issue -, Pages 23-30

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.004

Keywords

Personal interviews; Computer-assisted interviews; Sensitive topics; Avatars; Self-disclosure; Embodied conversational agents

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the many advantages of computer-assisted data collection, it is unclear if, when, or under what conditions embodied conversational agents (i.e., ECA, virtual humans) can replace human interviewers to collect personal information in interviews, especially for topics that might be regarded as 'sensitive'. This paper presents results from an exploratory study designed to investigate how topic sensitivity affects individuals' preference to disclose to a human or an ECA interviewer. A convenience sample of 203 undergraduate business students completed a scenario-based survey that asked them to rate the sensitivity of various interview topics and indicate their preference to disclose such sensitive information to human or ECA interviewers. Open-ended questions revealed factors behind preferences for interviewer choice. Findings show a preference for ECAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions. For topics rated low in sensitivity or more likely to evoke positive self admissions, human interviewers are preferred. Specifically, participants stated that they would feel more comfortable discussing sensitive topics with an ECA interviewer because it could not judge them. This indicates that the evaluative capability of the interviewer plays a factor in the amount of sensitive information elicited from interviewees. Overall, results contribute to an understanding of when and why ECA interviewers can effectively replace human interviewers. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available