Cover not available

Article In: Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

What AI pretends to be?

Design rhetoric and trust in the appearances of AI applications

ORCiD logo with link | Hong Kong Baptist University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Recent research shows that anthropomorphizing of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as virtual assistants or chatbots, affects users’ trust. This paper explores what an AI technology should look like at the interface to facilitate appropriate trust. It proposes an integrated framework based on related work, including Lee, John D., and Katrina A. See. 2004. “Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance.” Human Factors 46 (1): 50–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar trust in automation model, Mollerup, Per. 2019. Pretense Design: Surface Over Substance Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar pretense design, as well as Clark, Herbert H., and Kerstin Fischer. 2023. “Social Robots as Depictions of Social Agents.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar notion of depictions, for analysis and design of appearances of AI applications that pretend to be something different. Following the proposed framework, cases of AI applications are analyzed. They span a spectrum of appearances, from humans with open or definite identities, through talking animals, to plants. Analyses suggest that appearances of AI applications should faithfully reflect the actual ability, characteristics, and design intent, in order to facilitate users’ trustworthiness assessments of the applications. Lastly, design implications and future research are discussed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Trustworthiness of AI applications
  • 3.Design rhetoric and trustworthiness assessment
  • 4.AI pretense design
  • 5.Depictions of AI applications
  • 6.Toward an integrated framework
  • 7.Case study: A spectrum of appearances of AI applications
    • 7.1Replika
    • 7.2Identity-based Chatbots
    • 7.3A virtual talking owl
    • 7.4Project Alias
  • 8.Design implications and future work
  • Notes
  • References
References (34)
References
Barthes, Roland. 1977. “Rhetoric of the Image.” In Image, Music, Text, 32–51. London: Fontana. Original edition, 1964.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bogost, Ian. 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 2016. “Depicting as a Method of Communication.” Psychological Review 123 (3): 324–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Kerstin Fischer. 2023. “Social Robots as Depictions of Social Agents.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehses, Hanno H. J. 1984. “Representing Macbeth: A Case Study in Visual Rhetoric.” Design Issues 1 (1): 53–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairburn, Christopher G. 2008. Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Eating Disorders. Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frasca, Gonzalo. 2003. “Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology.” In The Video Game Theory Reader, ed. by Mark J. P. Wolf and Bernard Perron, 221–235. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Go, Eun, and S. Shyam Sundar. 2019. “Humanizing Chatbots: The Effects of Visual, Identity and Conversational Cues on Humanness Perceptions.” Computers in Human Behavior 97: 304–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gurevitch, Leon. 2019. “The Documentary Attraction: Animation, Simulation and the Rhetoric of Expertise.” In Drawn from Life, ed. by Jonathan Murray, and Nea Ehrlich, 84–105. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayles, N. Katherine. 2023. “Posthuman Bodies: Why They (Still) Matter.” In Mapping the Posthuman, ed. by Grant Hamilton and Carolyn Lau, 29–48. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Steve. 2018. The Rhetoric of Videogames as Embodied Practice: Procedural Habits. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY, US: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, John D., and Katrina A. See. 2004. “Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance.” Human Factors 46 (1): 50–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Han, and Renwen Zhang. 2024. “Finding Love in Algorithms: Deciphering the Emotional Contexts of Close Encounters with AI Chatbots.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 29 (5). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Xinge, and Yongjun Sung. 2021. “Anthropomorphism Brings Us Closer: The Mediating Role of Psychological Distance in User–AI Assistant Interactions.” Computers in Human Behavior 118: 106680. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liebrecht, Christine, and Charlotte van Hooijdonk. 2020. “Creating Humanlike Chatbots: What Chatbot Developers Could Learn from Webcare Employees in Adopting a Conversational Human Voice.” In Chatbot Research and Design. Third International Workshop. (CONVERSATIONS 2019) ed. by Asbjørn Følstad et al., 51–64. Berlin, Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.” The Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mollerup, Per. 2019. Pretense Design: Surface Over Substance Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norman, Donald A. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oinas-Kukkonen, Harri, and Marja Harjumaa. 2008. “A Systematic Framework for Designing and Evaluating Persuasive Systems.” In Persuasive Technology. Third International Conference. Persuasive 2008. Proceedings, ed. by Harri Oinas-Kukkonen, Per Hasle, and Marja Harjumaa et al., 164–176. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997.” The American Political Science Review 92 (1): 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19: 123–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 2016. Writing Arguments : A Rhetoric With Readings. Tenth edition. ed. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rousseau, Denise M., Sim B. Sitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer. 1998. “Not so Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust.” The Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 393–404. [URL].
Sheldrake, Merlin. 2020. Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds & Shape Our Futures. Random House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shen, Xin. 2023. “Designing Text-Based Chatbots For Eating Disorders: From An Identity-Based Perspective.” PhD diss., The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. [URL]
Skjuve, Marita, Asbjørn Følstad, Knut Inge Fostervold, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2021. “My Chatbot Companion — a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 149: 102601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. “A Longitudinal Study of Human–Chatbot Relationships.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 168: 102903. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul, Melissa L. Finucane, Ellen Peters, and Donald G. MacGregor. 2007. “The Affect Heuristic.” European Journal of Operational Research 177 (3): 1333–1352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Eliot R., and Jamie DeCoster. 2000. “Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 4 (2): 108–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. 2000. “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63 (3): 224–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strack, Fritz, and Roland Deutsch. 2004. “Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 8 (3): 220–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sundar, S. Shyam, Saraswathi Bellur, Jeeyun Oh, Haiyan Jia, and Hyang-Sook Kim. 2016. “Theoretical Importance of Contingency in Human-Computer Interaction:Effects of Message Interactivity on User Engagement.” Communication Research 43 (5): 595–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verberne, Frank M. F., Jaap Ham, and Cees J. H. Midden. 2015. “Trusting a Virtual Driver That Looks, Acts, and Thinks Like You.” Human Factors 57 (5): 895–909. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue