Beyond Words: Infusing Conversational Agents with Human-like Typing Behaviors
Recently, large language models have facilitated the emergence of highly intelligent conversational AI capable of engaging in human-like dialogues. However, a notable distinction lies in the fact that these AI models predominantly generate responses rapidly, often producing extensive content without emulating the thoughtful process characteristic of human cognition and typing. This paper presents a design aimed at simulating human-like typing behaviors, including patterns such as hesitation and self-editing, as well as a preliminary user experiment to understand whether and to what extent the agent with human-like typing behaviors could potentially affect conversational engagement and its trustworthiness. We've constructed an interactive platform featuring user-adjustable parameters, allowing users to personalize the AI's communication style and thus cultivate a more enriching and immersive conversational experience. Our user experiment, involving interactions with three types of agents—a baseline agent, one simulating hesitation, and another integrating both hesitation and self-editing behaviors—reveals a preference for the agent that incorporates both behaviors, suggesting an improvement in perceived naturalness and trustworthiness. Through the insights from our design process and both quantitative and qualitative feedback from user experiments, this paper contributes to the multimodal interaction design and user experience for conversational AI, advocating for a more human-like, engaging, and trustworthy communication paradigm.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
Research Questions
3- Can mimicking human typing behaviors such as hesitation and self-correction improve chat agent naturalness and credibility?Category: Trust, Transparency, and Response Latency DesignSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- What are users' perceptions and preferences regarding different types of chat agent typing behaviors (hesitation, self-correction)?Category: Trust, Transparency, and Response Latency DesignSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- How do chat agents with adjustable typing behaviors affect user engagement and interaction duration?Category: Trust, Transparency, and Response Latency DesignSimilar questionsarrow_forward
Practical Problems
1- Chatbots appear inhuman and unnatural because they generate responses too quickly.Category: Trust, Transparency, and Response Latency DesignSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- 100%
Touch Your Heart: A Tone-aware Chatbot for Customer Care on Social Media
CHI '18· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
Single or Multiple Conversational Agents? An Interactional Coherence Comparison
CHI '18· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
What Makes a Good Conversation? Challenges in Designing Truly Conversational Agents
CHI '19· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
If I Hear You Correctly: Building and Evaluating Interview Chatbots with Active Listening Skills
CHI '20· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
Bot in the Bunch: Facilitating Group Chat Discussion by Improving Efficiency and Participation with a Chatbot
CHI '20· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
Effects of Persuasive Dialogues: Testing Bot Identities and Inquiry Strategies
CHI '20· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
"I Hear You, I Feel You": Encouraging Deep Self-disclosure through a Chatbot
CHI '20· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
Exploring Semi-Supervised Learning for Predicting Listener Backchannels
CHI '21· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
Heuristic Evaluation of Conversational Agents
CHI '21· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 100%
Designing Conversational Agents: A Self-Determination Theory Approach
CHI '21· Conversational Chatbots +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)