Exploring the influence of user characteristics on verbal aggression towards social chatbots
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chatbots possess great potential benefits, yet concerns persist regarding users adopting inappropriate, offensive language. This research delved into the influence of user characteristics on verbally aggressive behaviours towards social chatbots. Employing a mixed-method study, we examined individual characteristics such as personal dispositions, offensive language patterns, academic majors, and prior experiences with conversational agents. Findings from a ten-day field experiment involving 33 participants using a real-world Telegram-based chatbot app unveiled that users' anthropomorphism, computer-related major, and gender significantly impact their moral emotions and evaluations of the chatbot's capabilities. Moreover, employing offensive language towards the chatbot detrimentally impacted users' perceptions of its abilities, helpfulness, and likability. The research findings advocate for ongoing monitoring and effective resolution of users' behaviours regarding the use of offensive language in their interactions with a chatbot. Additionally, the results underscore the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives into chatbot design to address biases and offensive utterances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it