Journal of the HCI Society of Korea (한국HCI학회논문지)

The HCI Society of Korea (한국HCI학회)
권호 표지

Users' Perception and Behavioral Differences Depending on Chatbot Agent Identities

챗봇 에이전트 정체성(identity)에 따른 사용자의 인식 및 행동 차이에 대한 연구 개인, 기관, 기계 에이전트의 차이를 중심으로

  • 김유정 (서울대학교 융합과학기술대학원 융합과학부) ;
  • 한상규 (서울대학교 융합과학기술대학원 융합과학부) ;
  • 윤종묵 (서울대학교 융합과학기술대학원 융합과학부) ;
  • 허은영 (분당서울대학교병원 디지털헬스케어연구사업부) ;
  • 김정훈 (분당서울대학교병원 이비인후과) ;
  • 이중식 (서울대학교 융합과학기술대학원 융합과학부)
  • Received : 2017.09.13
  • Accepted : 2017.10.31
  • Published : 2017.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In recent years, some service providers have introduced chatbot agents to provide engagement in the healthcare field. However, current research on chatbot agents is still limited to designing various chatbot identities for healthcare services. By contrast, this study aims to investigate how various agent identities affect users' perceptions and behaviors differently. We developed three chatbot agents with different identities: a doctor (an individual), a hospital (an institution), and a virtual agent (a machine). Then, we recruited 36 users and divided them into three groups, each using a different chatbot agent. They were asked to track their behaviors and review advice from the chatbot agent for six days. Post-hoc surveys and interviews were conducted in order to investigate users' perceptions. The findings are as follows: participants felt more trusting and intimate with the doctor and hospital agents than with the virtual agent. Many of the participants preferred the hospital agent due to its higher reliability. However, all three agents did not lead the participants to change their behaviors. This study contributes to providing practical guidelines for designing chatbots in the healthcare field by studying users' perceptions and behaviors depending on chatbot identities.

최근 헬스케어 분야에서 지속적인 건강 관리 서비스를 제공하기 위해 챗봇 에이전트를 도입하는 시도가 늘어나고 있다. 하지만 아직까지 챗봇 에이전트 설계에 대한 연구는 인간과 기계라는 구분에 머물러 있어, 에이전트에 대한 신뢰, 친밀감, 행동 변화를 모두 고려해야 하는 헬스케어 영역에서의 챗봇 설계에 활용하기에는 한계가 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 인간과 기계라는 구분에서 나아가, 보다 다양한 에이전트 정체성에 따라 사용자의 인식과 행동이 달라지는지 조사하고자 했다. 이를 위해 정체성을 다르게 설정한 3개의 챗봇 에이전트인 의사(개인), 병원(기관), 가상 에이전트(기계)를 제작한 후, 집단 간 설계(between-group design) 방식으로 36명의 사용자를 세 그룹으로 나누어 6일간 챗봇을 사용하며 건강 습관을 기록하도록 하였다. 6일간의 챗봇 사용을 마친 후, 사후 설문 및 인터뷰를 통하여 사용자들의 신뢰, 친밀감, 행동 개선에 어떤 영향이 있었는지 살펴보았다. 그 결과 의사와 병원 에이전트는 건강지키미 에이전트보다 높은 신뢰를 보였으며, 친밀감에 있어서도 더욱 높은 평가를 받았다. 또한, 많은 참가자가 병원 에이전트를 선호하는 것으로 드러났다. 하지만 세 개 에이전트 모두 사용자들의 행동 변화를 성공적으로 유도하지는 못했던 것으로 나타났다. 이 같은 결과를 바탕으로 본 연구는 정체성이 다른 챗봇 에이전트가 사용자에게 신뢰, 친밀감의 차원에서 다른 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 밝혀냄으로써, 헬스케어 분야에서 챗봇 에이전트 설계에 대한 실용적인 가이드라인을 제공한다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Lark Techonologies, Inc. Lark. http://www.web.lark.com 2017.9.13.
  2. 나유권. 질문하는 내 손안의 주치의 '헬스케어챗봇'. http://www.ipnomics.co.kr/?p=59870 2017.9.13
  3. Sherpa, S. Chat bots are the new trend in the tech world: Morph.ai and Boxx.ai are the startups to watch for. https://www.gizbot.com/news/chat-bots-are-the-new-trend-the-tech-world-boxx-ai-043876.html 2017.9.13.
  4. Evans B. Chat bots, conversation and AI as an interface. http://ben-evans.com 2017.9.13.
  5. Michael, M. and CHEUVRONT, C. C. J. B. Health communication on the Internet: an effective channel for health behavior change?. Journal of health communication. 3(1). pp. 71-79. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/108107398127517
  6. 김치원. 의료, 미래를 만나다. 서울:클라우드나인. 2015.
  7. Patrick, K., Raab, F., Adams, M. A., Dillon, L., Zabinski, M., Rock, C. L. and Norman, G. J. A text message-based intervention for weight loss: randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 11(1). 2009.
  8. Fjeldsoe, B. S., Marshall, A. L. and Miller, Y. D. Behavior change interventions delivered by mobile telephone short-message service. American journal of preventive medicine. 36(2). pp. 165-173. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.040
  9. Hill, J., Ford, W. R. and Farreras, I. G. Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human-human online conversations and human-chatbot conversations. Computers in Human Behavior. 49. pp. 245-250. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.026
  10. Candello, H., Pinhanez, C. and Figueiredo, F. Typefaces and the Perception of Humanness in Natural Language Chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 3476-3487. 2017.
  11. Morrissey, K. and Kirakowski, J. 'Realness' in Chatbots: Establishing Quantifiable Criteria. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer. Berlin. Heidelberg. pp. 87-96. 2013.
  12. 홍은지, 조광수, 최준호. 스마트홈 대화형 인터페이스의 의인화 효과. 한국HCI학회 논문지. 12(1). pp. 15-23. 2017.
  13. Kim, Y., Ji, S., Lee, H., Kim, J. W., Yoo, S. and Lee, J. My Doctor is Keeping an Eye on Me!: Exploring the Clinical Applicability of a Mobile Food Logger. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 5620-5631. 2016.
  14. Li, I., Dey, A. and Forlizzi, J. A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 557-566. 2010.
  15. Reeves, B. and Nass, C. The media equation: how people treat computers, television,? new media like real people? places. Computers and Mathematics with Applications. 5(33). 128. 1997.
  16. Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P. and Hodges, L. Can a virtual cat persuade you?: the role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM. pp. 1153-1162. 2006.
  17. 최주은, 김유정, 김진영, 이중식. 오프라인 진료실 경험 확장을 위한 온라인 인터랙션 제안. HCI2007 학술대회 발표논문집. 한국HCI학회. pp.354-358. 2017.
  18. Twine Health, Inc. Twine Health. http://www.twinehealth.com 2017.9.13.
  19. American Well. Amwell: Live Doctor Visit Now. http://www.amwell.com 2017.9.13.
  20. Tremayne, M., Chen, X., Figur, N. and Sonia Huang, J. Perceived authority and communication channel: Experiments with instant messaging. Social Science Computer Review. 26(2). pp. 178-189. 2008.
  21. Yuan, W., Guan, D., Lee, S. and Lee, Y. K. The role of trust in ubiquitous healthcare. In e-Health Networking, Application and Services. 2007 9th International Conference on. IEEE. pp. 312-315. 2007
  22. 김미경, 이혜규. 정보 발신자 유형과 정보 속성 유형에 따른 네이티브 광고 (Native ad) 효과 연구. 광고학연구. 27(6). pp. 29-49. 2016.
  23. McAlexander, J. H., Kaldenburg, D. O. and Koenig, H. F. Service quality measurement. Marketing Health Services. 14(3). 34. 1994.
  24. Klasnja, P. and Pratt, W. Healthcare in the pocket: mapping the space of mobile-phone health interventions. Journal of biomedical informatics. 45(1). pp. 184-198. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2011.08.017
  25. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Personal and ubiquitous computing. 17(6). pp. 1223-1235. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0591-5
  26. Cordeiro, F., Epstein, D. A., Thomaz, E., Bales, E., Jagannathan, A. K., Abowd, G. D. and Fogarty, J. Barriers and negative nudges: Exploring challenges in food journaling. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 1159-1162. 2015.
  27. Cordeiro, F., Bales, E., Cherry, E. and Fogarty, J. Rethinking the mobile food journal: Exploring opportunities for lightweight photo-based capture. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 3207-3216. 2015.
  28. Baker, R. C. and Kirschenbaum, D. S. Weight control during the holidays: highly consistent self-monitoring as a potentially useful coping mechanism. Health Psychology. 17(4). p.367. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.17.4.367
  29. Burke, L. E., Warziski, M., Starrett, T., Choo, J., Music, E., Sereika, S. and Sevick, M. A. Self-monitoring dietary intake: current and future practices. Journal of Renal Nutrition. 15(3). pp. 281-290. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrn.2005.04.002
  30. Epstein, D. A., Cordeiro, F., Fogarty, J., Hsieh, G. and Munson, S. A. Crumbs: lightweight daily food challenges to promote engagement and mindfulness. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 5632-5644. 2016.
  31. Motion AI, Inc. Motion.ai. http://motion.ai 2017.9.13.
  32. Maeng, W., Yoon, J., Ahn, H. and Lee, J. Can Mobile Instant Messaging Be a Useful Interviewing Tool? A Comparative Analysis of Phone Use, Instant Messaging, and Mobile Instant Messaging. In Proceedings of HCI Korea. pp. 45-49. 2016.
  33. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2). pp. 77-101. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  34. Crisci, R. and Kassinove, H. Effect of perceived expertise, strength of advice, and environmental setting on parental compliance. The Journal of Social Psychology. 89(2). pp. 245-250. 1973. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1973.9922597
  35. Lally, P., Van Jaarsveld, C. H., Potts, H. W. and Wardle, J. How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European journal of social psychology. 40(6). pp. 998-1009. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674