IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/igg/jthi00/v5y2009i4p60-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Benefits of (Automated) Dialogue

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Hurling

    (Unilever Research, UK)

  • Marco De Boni

    (Unilever Research, UK)

  • Alannah Richardson

    (Unilever Research, UK)

Abstract

The authors compared user evaluation of a text based dialogue system with a simple pick list for the same task. The authors matched the systems in terms of key factors, such as design for Usability, and took into account individual differences between participants that might have influenced their perception, such as Locus of Control, Experience and Personality. They found participants rated the text based dialogue system as being more informative, more credible, less frustrating and more persuasive than the simple pick list system. Participants’ ratings were dependent on their Personality, Locus of Control and reported level of physical activity. Participants did not differentiate between the systems in terms of their ease of use, indicating the other observed differences were not due to a simple difference in Usability. This study demonstrated the benefits of including automated dialogue in a system designed to help people find solutions for their exercise barriers. Further work is required to establish in what other situations dialogue provides a benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Hurling & Marco De Boni & Alannah Richardson, 2009. "The Benefits of (Automated) Dialogue," International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), IGI Global, vol. 5(4), pages 60-79, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:igg:jthi00:v:5:y:2009:i:4:p:60-79
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/jthi.2009062504
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:igg:jthi00:v:5:y:2009:i:4:p:60-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journal Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.igi-global.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.