“The Chatbot is typing …” – The Role of Typing Indicators in Human-Chatbot Interaction

Abstract

Chatbots have attracted considerable interest in recent years. A key design challenge to increase their adoption is to make the interaction with them feel natural and human-like. Therefore, it is suggested to incorporate social cues in the chatbot design. Drawing on the Computers are Social Actors paradigm and the "uncanny valley" hypothesis, we study the effect of one specific social cue (i.e., typing indicators) on social presence of chatbots. In an online experiment, we investigate the effect of two specific designs of typing indicators. Our preliminary results indicate that graphical typing indicators increase social presence of chatbots, but only for novice users. Therefore, our results suggest that the relationship between typing indicators and perceived social presence of chatbots depends on the design of these indicators and user's prior experience. We contribute with empirical insights and design knowledge that support researchers and practitioners in understanding and designing more natural human-chatbot interactions.

Full text

This is the author’s version of a work that was published in the following source
Gnewuch, U., Adam, M. T. P., Morana, S., and Maedche, A. 2018. “‘The Chatbot Is Typing …’ - The Role
of Typing Indicators in Human-Chatbot Interaction,” in Proceedings of the 17th Annual Pre-ICIS Workshop
on HCI Research in MIS, San Francisco, CA, USA, December 13th, 2018.
Please note: Copyright is owned by the author and / or the publisher.
Commercial use is not allowed.
Institute of Information Systems and Marketing (IISM)
Fritz-Erler-Strasse 23
76133 Karlsruhe - Germany
http://iism.kit.edu
Karlsruhe Service Research Institute (KSRI)
Kaiserstraße 89
76133 Karlsruhe – Germany
http://ksri.kit.edu
© 2017. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-
BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/

Gnewuch et al. Role of Typing Indicators in Human-Chatbot Interaction
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Pre-ICIS Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2018
1
“The Chatbot is typing …” – The Role of Typing Indicators
in Human-Chatbot Interaction
Ulrich Gnewuch
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
ulrich.gnewuch@kit.edu
Stefan Morana
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
stefan.morana@kit.edu
Marc T. P. Adam
The University of Newcastle, Australia
marc.adam@newcastle.edu.au
Alexander Maedche
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
alexander.maedche@kit.edu
ABSTRACT
Chatbots have attracted considerable interest in recent years.
A key design challenge to increase their adoption is to make
the interaction with them feel natural and human-like.
Therefore, it is suggested to incorporate social cues in the
chatbot design. Drawing on the Computers are Social Actors
paradigm and the “uncanny valley” hypothesis, we study the
effect of one specific social cue (i.e., typing indicators) on
social presence of chatbots. In an online experiment, we
investigate the effect of two specific designs of typing
indicators. Our preliminary results indicate that graphical
typing indicators increase social presence of chatbots, but
only for novice users. Therefore, our results suggest that the
relationship between typing indicators and perceived social
presence of chatbots depends on the design of these
indicators and user’s prior experience. We contribute with
empirical insights and design knowledge that support
researchers and practitioners in understanding and designing
more natural human-chatbot interactions.
Keywords
Chatbot, conversational agent, typing indicator, social
presence, computers are social actors, online experiment.
INTRODUCTION
Text-based conversational agents, commonly referred to as
chatbots, have received a lot of attention in recent years.
They are designed to interact with humans using natural
language and are increasingly used on messaging platforms
and websites (Dale 2016). As advances in artificial
intelligence continue, many organizations are beginning to
implement chatbots to automate customer service and
reduce costs (Gartner 2018). Despite the large interest in
chatbots, their adoption and use is growing much slower
than expected (Liedtke 2017). One key barrier to the
adoption and use of chatbots is that the interaction with them
often does not feel natural and human-like (Schuetzler et al.
2014). However, established design principles for creating
chatbot interactions that feel natural to the user are scarce
(McTear 2017). Previous research on the design of websites
and recommendation agents suggests that incorporating
social cues, such as natural language and human-like
appearance, makes the interaction more natural and
enhances users’ perceived social presence (e.g., Qiu and
Benbasat 2009).
Much of this research builds on the Computers are Social
Actors (CASA) paradigm to explain why users apply social
rules and expectations in their interaction with information
systems (IS) that incorporate social cues, such as natural
language or human-like appearance (Nass et al. 1994). Many
studies have found that social cues can positively affect
users’ perceived social presence, trust, enjoyment, and usage
intentions (e.g., Qiu and Benbasat 2009; Wakefield et al.
2011). However, it has also been shown that social cues may
backfire, particularly when they irritate users or overplay the
system’s actual capabilities (Louwerse et al. 2005). In the
context of chatbots, a design feature that has been used by
both researchers and practitioners to make chatbot
interactions appear more natural and familiar to the user is
the so-called typing indicator (Appel et al. 2012;
Klopfenstein et al. 2017). This typing indicator (e.g., three
animated dots or the message “[Person X] is typing”) was
originally developed for text-based computer-mediated
communication (CMC) systems to create awareness that the
other person is typing in order to support turn-taking
(Auerbach 2014). Today, most messaging applications have
implemented different forms of these indicators.
Consequently, it is suggested to incorporate them in the
design of chatbots in order to make the interaction with them
feel more like interacting with a real human being (Appel et
al. 2012).
Existing research on typing indicators indicates that they
may also serve as a social cue as they increase the feeling of
being closer to another person (Shin et al. 2018) and are used
to make the interaction appear more natural (Appel et al.
2012). However, due to the fact that a chatbot is a machine,
which does not type responses on a keyboard, “faking
human responses” using these indicators may adversely
affect users’ perceptions of chatbots (Klopfenstein et al.
2017, p. 559). To the best of our knowledge, little empirical
research has examined the role of typing indicators in

Gnewuch et al. Role of Typing Indicators in Human-Chatbot Interaction
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Pre-ICIS Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2018
2
human-chatbot interaction. Moreover, there is a lack of
knowledge on whether different typing indicator designs
influence user perceptions of chatbots differently. To
address this gap, we focus on the concept of social presence,
which has been identified as a key factor in the design of IS
in online environments. Moreover, it is an important driver
of trust, enjoyment, and usage intentions (Cyr et al. 2007),
particularly in the domain of customer service in which
chatbots are increasingly used (Gartner 2018). Thus, we
address the following research question:
How do typing indicators influence users’ perceived social
presence of chatbots in customer service?
To address our research question, we conducted a three-
condition, between-subjects online experiment to investigate
the effect of typing indicators in human-chatbot interaction.
Drawing on the CASA paradigm (Nass et al. 1994) and the
uncanny valley hypothesis (Mori 1970), we examined how
the existence and two different designs of typing indicators
influence users’ perceived social presence of chatbots. The
results of our preliminary analysis show that typing
indicators positively influence novice users’ perceived social
presence of a chatbot, while they make no difference for
experienced users. Moreover, there is a significant
difference between the two designs of typing indicators for
novice users. By investigating the design and outcomes of a
specific social cue (i.e., typing indicators), our research
contributes to existing literature on the design of text-based
conversational agents.
RELATED WORK AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Chatbots are Social Actors
Previous research has used a variety of terms to describe
systems that allow users to interact with them using natural
language (e.g., conversational agent, chatbot, or virtual
assistant). It has been shown that humans respond socially
to computers exhibiting human-like characteristics (Nass et
al. 1994). The CASA paradigm posits that, when users are
confronted with these so-called social cues from a computer
(e.g., natural language or human-like appearance), they
automatically apply social rules and expectations in their
interaction with it (Nass et al. 1994). Even rudimentary
social cues are sufficient to generate a wide range of social
responses from users. Following the CASA paradigm,
many studies have investigated how users react to various
social cues from computers, robots, and other technologies.
Examples in IS research include recommendation agents
(e.g., Qiu and Benbasat 2009) and websites (e.g.,
Wakefield et al. 2011). A few studies were also conducted
in the context of chatbots to examine the effect of visual
(e.g., Appel et al. 2012) or verbal cues (e.g., Schuetzler et
al. 2014). Across these studies, social cues have been found
to positively affect user perceptions of chatbots (e.g., social
presence, trust, or engagement). However, the provision of
inappropriate social cues to overly humanize chatbots may
also backfire when they too closely resemble human beings
(Gnewuch et al. 2017; Louwerse et al. 2005). The
“uncanny valley” hypothesis states that human-like
technologies are perceived as more agreeable up until they
become so human that people find their nonhuman
imperfections unsettling (Mori 1970). Therefore, design
features, such as typing indicators, that represent social
cues need to be designed carefully to limit possible
negative impacts (Fogg 2002).
Typing Indicators and Turn-Taking
Turn-taking is a fundamental mechanism for the
organization of turns in human-human interaction (Sacks
et al. 1974). It basically describes the rules by which
participants in a conversation manage who speaks when
and for how long in order to avoid overlaps and minimize
silence between turns (Sacks et al. 1974). In face-to-face
communication, turn-taking is facilitated by a multitude of
social cues such as gesticulations, eye contact, and facial
expressions (Wiemann and Knapp 1975). Since these cues
are missing in text-based CMC, such as instant messaging,
users are usually not aware of another person’s turn
because their messages do not appear on the users’ screen
until the person typing them hits the return key. To prevent
overlaps and increase turn-taking awareness, developers of
one of the first messaging applications, Microsoft’s MSN
Messenger, invented the typing indicator (Auerbach 2014).
Once a user started typing a message, this indicator
displayed “[Person X] is typing” on the other person’s
screen, which facilitated turn-taking and substituted the
missing social cues (e.g., facial expressions) used in
human-human interaction.
Nowadays, typing indicators have been implemented in all
major messaging applications. Looking at the most widely-
used messaging applications, primarily two different types
of designs can be identified: (1) a graphical typing
indicator (3 dots) and (2) a textual typing indicator
(Typing). Both typing indicators share some similarities
with filler interfaces found on websites (e.g., loading
screens, progress bars, or “Please wait” messages), which
have been found to influence users’ waiting experience and
perceived waiting time by directing attention away from
the wait (Lee et al. 2012).
As chatbots are often implemented in the same text-based
CMC channels (e.g., Facebook Messenger), they also
increasingly use typing indicators (Klopfenstein et al.
2017). Although practitioners frequently highlight their
potential benefits, empirical research on their role in
human-chatbot interaction is scarce. More specifically, it is
not clear whether typing indicators positively affect user
perceptions of chatbots (i.e., increase social presence) and
whether different typing indicator designs influence these
perceptions differently.
RESEARCH MODEL
Although typing indicators are implemented in most
messaging applications and also used by chatbots
(Klopfenstein et al. 2017), little empirical research has been
conducted to understand how they impact human-chatbot
interaction. Therefore, we decided to adopt a two-step

Gnewuch et al. Role of Typing Indicators in Human-Chatbot Interaction
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Pre-ICIS Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2018
3
approach to derive our hypotheses and develop our research
model (c.f., Lee et al. 2012). Before exploring different
typing indicator designs, it needs to be examined whether the
existence of the typing indicator itself influences users’
perceived social presence of a chatbot. Drawing on the
CASA paradigm and the uncanny valley hypothesis, we
formulate four hypotheses on the effect of the existence and
two designs of typing indicators.
Social presence has been identified as a key factor in the
design of IS in online environments and an important driver
of trust, enjoyment, and usage intentions (Cyr et al. 2007).
The concept of social presence is used to understand how
feelings of warmth, sociability, and human contact can be
created without actual human contact (Gefen and Straub
2004). Previous research has shown that many social cues
incorporated in websites, recommendations agents, and
other technologies, create perceptions of social presence
(e.g., Qiu and Benbasat 2009). According to the CASA
paradigm, these perceptions are the result of an unconscious
process, in which users respond to technologies as though
they were human, despite knowing that they are interacting
with a machine (Nass et al. 1994). Drawing on CASA, we
argue that typing indicators serve as a social cue in the
interaction with a chatbot. More specifically, we believe that
when users interact with a chatbot with a typing indicator,
their perceptions of the chatbot are shaped by their social
expectations from interacting with other human beings (i.e.,
using messaging applications such as WhatsApp). Although
they know that the chatbot does not type responses on a
keyboard, they will subconsciously apply the social rules
practiced in their daily life, which in turn generates
perceptions of social presence similar to those that would be
generated if the user were interacting with another human.
Therefore, we propose that in human-chatbot interaction, the
mere existence of a typing indicator, regardless of its design
(i.e., graphical/3 Dots or textual/Typing), will lead to higher
levels of perceived social presence. Hence, we argue that:
H1a,b: Users exhibit higher levels of perceived social
presence when interacting with a chatbot with (a) a
graphical typing indicator and (b) a textual typing indicator,
compared to the same chatbot without a typing indicator.
As mentioned above, there are primarily two different
designs of typing indicators used in major messaging
applications: a graphical typing indicator (3 Dots) and a
textual typing indicator (Typing). Although we argue that the
existence of typing indicators itself influences users’
perceived social presence of chatbots, we assume that there
are differences in user perceptions between the two
identified designs. However, based on theory, it is not clear
how these differences will manifest themselves. Therefore,
we formulate two contrasting hypotheses on the effect of
different typing indicator designs (graphical vs. textual) on
social presence.
First, the graphical typing indicator has a rather functional
design, similar to loading screens or progress bars of
websites. Thus, while it indicates that “something” is
happening, it does not explicitly state what happens. Since
users are familiar with the graphical typing indicator from
their use of messaging applications, they subconsciously
associate a human action (i.e., typing) with it. According to
the CASA paradigm, even such minimal social cues can
trigger a wide range of social responses (Nass et al. 1994),
resulting in increased social presence as compared to no
typing indicators. However, the textual typing indicator
explicitly states that the chatbot is “typing” while users are
waiting for a response. Therefore, it can be argued that this
explicit message is a more salient social cue because it
imitates human action. Research based on CASA has found
that when users are exposed to more or stronger social cues,
their social responses become stronger as well (e.g., von der
Pütten et al. 2010). Therefore, we propose that a textual
typing indicator generates a higher level of perceived social
presence than a graphical typing indicator:
H2a: Users exhibit higher levels of perceived social presence
when interacting with a chatbot with a textual typing
indicator compared to a graphical typing indicator.
However, previous research also points out that “turn[ing]
up the volume on the social element” of technologies can
have some undesirable side effects (Fogg 2002, p. 114) and
may even backfire (Louwerse et al. 2005). For example,
Groom et al. (2009) found that users were less comfortable
interacting with a very realistic and human-like
conversational agent than with an agent with lower realism.
The uncanny valley hypothesis states that when technologies
become more human-like (e.g., by incorporating stronger
social cues), they are perceived as more agreeable and social,
until a point beyond which the reaction is reversed (Mori
1970). Therefore, we argue that textual typing indicators
explicitly stating that the chatbot is “typing” approach the
edge of the uncanny valley. Instead of increasing users’
perceptions of social presence, these indicators might
backfire because users feel like they are “faking” human
action. Thus, we propose that a textual typing indicator
generates a lower level of social presence than a graphical
typing indicator:
H2b: Users exhibit lower levels of perceived social presence
when interacting with a chatbot with a textual typing
indicator compared to a graphical typing indicator.
Figure 1. Research Model
METHOD
To test our research model, we conducted an online
experiment, in which participants interacted with a chatbot
in a customer service context. In the experiment, participants
were provided with a hypothetical scenario of using the
chatbot to search for a cheaper mobile phone plan that fit
their individual needs. After they received a
recommendation by the chatbot and ended their
conversation, they were asked to complete a survey about
Perceived
Social Presence
of a Chatbot
H2a,b
(1) None
(2) Graphical
(3) Textual
Typing Indicator
Controls: Gender, Trust in Technology, Prior Experience with Chatbots
H1a,b

Gnewuch et al. Role of Typing Indicators in Human-Chatbot Interaction
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Pre-ICIS Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2018
4
their perceptions of the chatbot and their interaction with it.
Overall, 256 student subjects participated in the experiment.
They were randomly assigned to one of the experimental
conditions.
Treatment Configuration and Chatbot Scenario
The online experiment employed a between-subjects design
with three conditions (typing indicator: none, graphical,
textual) to avoid potential carry-over effects. In all
conditions, participants were told that they were interacting
with a chatbot. In the control condition (CTRL) condition,
participants interacted with a chatbot that did not display a
typing indicator before sending a message. In the first
treatment condition (3DOTS), the chatbot displayed a
graphical typing indicator before sending a message (see
Table 1). In the second treatment condition (TYPING), the
chatbot displayed a textual typing indicator before sending a
message. In each condition, the chatbots’ responses were
delayed by 2.3 seconds to ensure that participants were
sufficiently exposed to the typing indicators. Since response
time can also serve as a social cue (Gnewuch et al. 2018),
responses of the chatbot without typing indicators were also
delayed to keep the chatbots’ response time identical and
hence comparable across all conditions.
Condition
Typing
Indicator
Description
CTRL
None
-
3DOTS
Graphical
Three animated dots fading in one after
another and then fading out, placed
above the user input field.
TYPING
Textual
A textual status message “typing…”
placed above the user input field.
Table 1. Treatment Configuration
Measures and Manipulation Check
All measures used in the survey were adapted from
established scales. Social presence was assessed using the
items from Gefen and Straub (1997). Moreover, we
measured control variables, such as disposition to trust
technology (Lankton et al. 2015) and prior experience with
chatbots (ranging from “never” to “daily”), as well as
collected demographic information (e.g., age, gender).
Condition
Social Presence
Mean
SD
SE
CTRL (n=63)
3.448
1.442
0.182
3DOTS (n=63)
3.902
1.451
0.183
TYPING (n=63)
3.663
1.408
0.177
SD = standard deviation | SE = standard error
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics
We included a manipulation check to test whether the typing
indicator manipulation was successful. Participants were
asked to rate whether the chatbot indicated that a response
was being prepared/generated, using a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree). A one-way
ANOVA showed a significant influence of the experimental
conditions on perceived indication that a response was
prepared/generated (F(2, 186)=439.3, p<.001).
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
In our preliminary analysis conducted so far, we estimated
two regression models to analyze the effect of the treatment
conditions on perceived social presence and the interaction
between users’ prior experience with chatbots and the
treatment condition along with two user-related factors (i.e.,
gender, disposition to trust technology). We differentiated
between novice users who have never used a chatbot and
experienced users who use a chatbot at least 1-2 times per
year. Our preliminary analysis shows mixed results. For
novice users, we find that the existence of a graphical typing
indicator (i.e., three animated dots) significantly impacts
their perceived social presence of a chatbot. However, this
relationship is not significant for experienced users.
Contrary to our expectations, we did not observe a
significant effect for the textual typing indicators (i.e.,
“typing…”), neither for novice nor experienced users.
However, novice users perceived a chatbot with a graphical
typing indicator significantly more socially present than a
chatbot with a textual typing indicator. Our results indicate
that the relationship between typing indicators and user
perceptions of chatbots is more complex than assumed.
Moreover, individual user characteristics, such as
experience with chatbots, seem to play an important role in
this relationship.
CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
This paper provides first insights on the role of different
typing indicators in human-chatbot interaction. In particular,
our findings suggest that the relationship between typing
indicators and perceived social presence of chatbots depends
on the design of these indicators and user’s prior experience
with chatbots. Therefore, our findings contribute to existing
literature on the design and evaluation of text-based
conversational agents. In our future research, we intend to
continue our data analysis and plan to supplement our survey
responses with findings from a qualitative analysis of the
chatbot conversations.
REFERENCES
1. Appel, J., von der Pütten, A., Krämer, N. C., and Gratch,
J. 2012. “Does Humanity Matter? Analyzing the
Importance of Social Cues and Perceived Agency of a
Computer System for the Emergence of Social Reactions
during Human-Computer Interaction,” Advances in
Human-Computer Interaction (2012), pp. 1–10.
2. Auerbach, D. 2014. “I Built That ‘So-and-So Is Typing’
Feature in Chat.”
(http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/0
2/typing_indicator_in_chat_i_built_it_and_i_m_not_sorr
y.html, accessed August 8, 2018).
3. Cyr, D., Hassanein, K., Head, M., and Ivanov, A. 2007.
“The Role of Social Presence in Establishing Loyalty in

Gnewuch et al. Role of Typing Indicators in Human-Chatbot Interaction
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Pre-ICIS Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2018
5
E-Service Environments,” Interacting with Computers
(19:1), pp. 43–56.
4. Dale, R. 2016. “The Return of the Chatbots,” Natural
Language Engineering (22:05), pp. 811–817.
5. Fogg, B. J. 2002. “Computers as Persuasive Social
Actors,” in Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to
Change What We Think and Do, San Francisco, CA,
USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 89–120.
6. Gartner. 2018. “Gartner Says 25 Percent of Customer
Service Operations Will Use Virtual Customer Assistants
by 2020.”
(https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3858564,
accessed September 11, 2018).
7. Gefen, D., and Straub, D. W. 1997. “Gender Differences
in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An Extension to the
Technology Acceptance Model,” MIS Quarterly (21:4),
pp. 389–400.
8. Gefen, D., and Straub, D. W. 2004. “Consumer Trust in
B2C E-Commerce and the Importance of Social Presence:
Experiments in e-Products and e-Services,” Omega
(32:6), pp. 407–424.
9. Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., Adam, M. T. P., and Maedche,
A. 2018. “Faster Is Not Always Better: Understanding the
Effect of Dynamic Response Delays in Human-Chatbot
Interaction,” in Proceedings of the European Conference
on Information Systems (ECIS), Portsmouth, UK.
10. Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., and Maedche, A. 2017.
“Towards Designing Cooperative and Social
Conversational Agents for Customer Service,” in
Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS), Seoul, South Korea.
11. Groom, V., Nass, C., Chen, T., Nielsen, A., Scarborough,
J. K., and Robles, E. 2009. “Evaluating the Effects of
Behavioral Realism in Embodied Agents,” International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies (67:10), pp. 842–
849.
12. Klopfenstein, L. C., Delpriori, S., Malatini, S., and
Bogliolo, A. 2017. “The Rise of Bots: A Survey of
Conversational Interfaces, Patterns, and Paradigms,” in
Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing
Interactive Systems, pp. 555–565.
13. Lankton, N. K., Mcknight, D. H., and Tripp, J. 2015.
“Technology, Humanness, and Trust: Rethinking Trust in
Technology,” Journal of the Association for Information
Systems (16:10), pp. 880–918.
14. Lee, Y., Chen, A., and Ilie, V. 2012. “Can Online Wait Be
Managed? The Effect of Filler Interfaces and Presentation
Modes on Perceived Waiting Time Online.,”
Management Information Systems Quarterly (36:2), pp.
365–394.
15. Liedtke, T. 2017. “Facebook’s Perfect, Impossible
Chatbot,” MIT Technology Review.
(https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604117/facebooks
-perfect-impossible-chatbot/, accessed August 9, 2018).
16. Louwerse, M. M., Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., and Mitchell,
H. H. 2005. “Social Cues in Animated Conversational
Agents,” Applied Cognitive Psychology (19:6), pp. 1–12.
17. McTear, M. F. 2017. “The Rise of the Conversational
Interface: A New Kid on the Block?,” in Future and
Emerging Trends in Language Technology. Machine
Learning and Big Data. FETLT 2016, pp. 38–49.
18. Mori, M. 1970. “The Uncanny Valley,” Energy (7:4), pp.
33–35.
19. Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E. R. 1994. “Computers
Are Social Actors,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Boston, MA, USA, pp. 72–78.
20. von der Pütten, A. M., Krämer, N. C., Gratch, J., and
Kang, S.-H. 2010. ““It Doesn’t Matter What You Are!”
Explaining Social Effects of Agents and Avatars,”
Computers in Human Behavior (26:6), pp. 1641–1650.
21. Qiu, L., and Benbasat, I. 2009. “Evaluating
Anthropomorphic Product Recommendation Agents: A
Social Relationship Perspective to Designing Information
Systems,” Journal of Management Information Systems
(25:4), pp. 145–182.
22. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. 1974. “A
Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking
for Conversation,” Language (50:4), p. 696.
23. Schuetzler, R. M., Grimes, G. M., Giboney, J. S., and
Buckman, J. 2014. “Facilitating Natural Conversational
Agent Interactions: Lessons from a Deception
Experiment,” in Proceedings of the 35th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS ’14), Auckland,
NZ, pp. 1–16.
24. Shin, I.-G., Seok, J.-M., and Lim, Y.-K. 2018. “Too Close
and Crowded: Understanding Stress on Mobile Instant
Messengers Based on Proxemics,” in Proceedings of the
2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’18), Montreal, Canada, pp. 1–12.
25. Wakefield, R. L., Wakefield, K. L., Baker, J., and Wang,
L. C. 2011. “How Website Socialness Leads to Website
Use,” European Journal of Information Systems (20:1),
pp. 118–132.
26. Wiemann, J. M., and Knapp, M. L. 1975. “Turn‐taking in
Conversations,” Journal of Communication (25:2), pp.
75–92.