My Bad! Repairing Intelligent Voice Assistant Errors Improves Interaction
Andrea Cuadra, Shuran Li, Hansol Lee, Jason Cho, Wendy Ju
Abstract
One key technique people use in conversation and collaboration is conversational repair. Self-repair is the recognition and attempted correction of one's own mistakes. We investigate how the self-repair of errors by intelligent voice assistants affects user interaction. In a controlled human-participant study (N =101), participants asked Amazon Alexa to perform four tasks, and we manipulated whether Alexa would "make a mistake'' understanding the participant (for example, playing heavy metal in response to a request for relaxing music) and whether Alexa would perform a correction (for example, stating, "You don't seem pleased. Did I get that wrong?'') We measured the impact of self-repair on the participant's perception of the interaction in four conditions: correction (mistakes made and repair performed), undercorrection (mistakes made, no repair performed), overcorrection (no mistakes made, but repair performed), and control (no mistakes made, and no repair performed). Subsequently, we conducted free-response interviews with each participant about their interactions. This study finds that self-repair greatly improves people's assessment of an intelligent voice assistant if a mistake has been made, but can degrade assessment if no correction is needed. However, we find that the positive impact of self-repair in the wake of an error outweighs the negative impact of overcorrection. In addition, participants who recently experienced an error saw increased value in self-repair as a feature, regardless of whether they experienced a repair themselves.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get 572c8786-e2d8-46f4-8973-a23c7bb41d52Cited by top-tier papers7
- "As an AI language model, I cannot": Investigating LLM Denials of User RequestsJoel Wester, Tim Schrills, Henning Pohl, Niels van BerkelCHI 2024 · 35 citations
- A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant FailuresAmanda Baughan, Xuezhi Wang, Ariel Liu, Allison Mercurio et al.CHI 2023 · 31 citations
- To Err is AI: Imperfect Interventions and Repair in a Conversational Agent Facilitating Group Chat DiscussionsHyo Jin Do, Ha Kyung Kong, Pooja Tetali, Jaewook Lee et al.CSCW 2023 · 31 citations
- Can Voice Assistants Be Microaggressors? Cross-Race Psychological Responses to Failures of Automatic Speech RecognitionKimi Wenzel, Nitya Devireddy, Cam Davidson, Geoff KaufmanCHI 2023 · 24 citations
- Creepy Assistant: Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure the Perceived Creepiness of Voice AssistantsRachel Phinnemore, Mohi Reza, Blaine Lewis, Karthik Mahadevan et al.CHI 2023 · 17 citations
Related papers
- Owning Mistakes Sincerely: Strategies for Mitigating AI ErrorsAmama Mahmood, Jeanie W. Fung, Isabel Won, Chien-Ming HuangCHI 2022 · 50 citations
- Understanding is a Two-Way Street: User-Initiated Repair on Agent Responses and Hearing in Conversational InterfacesRobert J. Moore, Sungeun An, Olivia H. MarreseCSCW 2024 · 3 citations
- FrownOnError: Interrupting Responses from Smart Speakers by Facial ExpressionsYukang Yan, Chun Yu, Wengrui Zheng, Ruining Tang et al.CHI 2020 · 24 citations
- Talking to a Know-It-All GPT or a Second-Guesser Claude? How Repair reveals distinct Multi-Turn Behavior in LLMsClara Lachenmaier, Hannah Bultmann, Sina ZarrießACL 2026
- Gender Biases in Error Mitigation by Voice AssistantsAmama Mahmood, Chien-Ming HuangCSCW 2024 · 26 citations
