Studying the Effects of Cognitive Biases in Evaluation of Conversational Agents
Honorable MentionAuthors
Humans quite frequently interact with conversational agents. The rapid advancement in generative language modeling through neural networks has helped advance the creation of intelligent conversational agents. Researchers typically evaluate the output of their models through crowdsourced judgments, but there are no established best practices for conducting such studies. Moreover, it is unclear if cognitive biases in decision-making are affecting crowdsourced workers' judgments when they undertake these tasks. To investigate, we conducted a between-subjects study with 77 crowdsourced workers to understand the role of cognitive biases, specifically anchoring bias, when humans are asked to evaluate the output of conversational agents. Our results provide insight into how best to evaluate conversational agents. We find increased consistency in ratings across two experimental conditions may be a result of anchoring bias. We also determine that external factors such as time and prior experience in similar tasks have effects on inter-rater consistency.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 75%
Pay Attention, Please: Formal Language Improves Attention in Volunteer and Paid Online Experiments
CHI '19· User Research Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Observation)
- 60%
"You Can Always Do Better!" The Impact of Social Proof on Participant Response Bias
CHI '18· Developing Countries & HCI for Development (HCI4D) +1
- 60%
Crowdlicit: A System for Conducting Distributed End-User Elicitation and Identification Studies
CHI '19· Crowdsourcing Task Design & Quality Control +1
- 60%
QButterfly: Lightweight Survey Extension for Online User-Interaction Studies for Non-Tech-Savvy Researchers
CHI '23· User Research Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Observation) +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)