“Polite” Interactions with Smart Speakers in Everyday Life: New Norms and Forms of Sociality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.5.2593Keywords:
smart speakers, conversational AI, norms of politeness, artificial communication, domestication of technologies, evocative objectAbstract
Understanding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and technologies in everyday life is an important task for contemporary sociological research. One of the key issues in the analysis of human-AI interaction is the consideration of new social and ethical norms in everyday life. This paper presents the results of an empirical study aimed at revealing the norms and forms of politeness that people use when communicating with smart speakers. The theoretical foundations of the research embrace the sociology of everyday life, the concept of artificial communication by Elena Esposito, and the concept of the evocative object by Sherry Turkle. The problem of politeness in interaction with a smart speaker is characterized in terms of Erving Goffman’s concept of face and the concept of linguistic politeness.
The authors formulate research questions and assumptions that are tested based on the analysis of 18 interviews with users of smart speakers in St. Petersburg, Tel Aviv, and Berlin. A comparative analysis of interviews with informants demonstrates that the norms of politeness typical for users in communication with smart speakers are similar in different countries. Within such interactions, users combine elements of linguistic politeness (typical polite phrases) and manifestations of politeness such to save the face, one's own and that of the interlocutor. At the same time, the results of the study did not reveal a relationship between how people use smart speakers and the concept of politeness they adhere to in relation to them. Anthropomorphizing of smart speakers turns out to be associated not with the nature of its use, but with its universal ability to enter a conversation.
Acknowledgements. The authors thank all informants for their interviews and sincere interest in the study. Informants from Berlin deserve special mention for their fantastic responsiveness, responsibility, and concern. The authors would also like to thank everyone who helped in finding informants for their participation and desire to help.
References
Корбут А. М. Одомашнивание искусственного интеллекта: умные колонки и трансформация повседневной жизни // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2021. № 1. С. 193—216. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.1.1808.
Korbut A. M. (2021) Domestication of Artificial Intelligence: Smart Speakers and Transformation of Everyday Life. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 1. P. 193—216. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.1.1808. (In Russ.)
Ушкин С. Г., Коваль Е. А. Алиса, ты следишь за мной? Восприятие конфиденциальности в нарративах пользователей «умных» колонок // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2023. № 3. С. 23—40. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2023.3.2314.
Ushkin S. G., Koval E. A. (2023) Alice, Are You Watching Me? Perception of Privacy in Narratives of “Smart” Speaker Users. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 3. P. 23—40. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2023.3.2314. (In Russ.)
Ушкин С. Г., Коваль Е. А., Яськин А. Н. Жить с Алисой: как голосовые помощники трансформируют практики коммуникации? // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2022. Т. 20. №. 3. С. 361—376. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2022-20-3-361-376.
Ushkin S. G., Koval E. A., Yaskin A. N. (2022) Living with Alice: How Voice Assistants Transform Communication Practices? Journal of Social Policy Research. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 361—376. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2022-20-3-361-376. (In Russ.)
Brause S. R., Blank G. (2020) Externalized Domestication: Smart Speaker Assistants, Networks, and Domestication Theory. Information, Communication & Society. Vol. 23. No. 5. P. 751—763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1713845.
Burton, N. G., Gaskin J. (2019) “Thank You, Siri”: Politeness and Intelligent Digital Assistants. In: Proceedings of the 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Cancún, Mexico, August 15-17. P. 2860-2870.
Esposito E. Artificial communication? (2017) The Production of Contingency by Algorithms. Zeitschrift für Soziologie. Vol. 46. No. 4. P. 249—265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2017-1014.
Goffman E. (1955) On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Psychiatry. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 213—231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008.
Kang H., Oh J. (2023) Communication Privacy Management for Smart Speaker Use: Integrating the Role of Privacy Self-Efficacy and the Multidimensional View. New Media & Society. Vol. 25. No. 5. P. 1153—1175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14614448211026611.
Kucharski A. B., Merkel S. (2023) Domestication of Smart Speakers by Older Users: Preliminary Findings from an Exploratory Qualitative Study. Digital Culture & Society. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 203—212. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2023-0110.
Li M., Suh A. (2021) Machinelike or Humanlike? A Literature Review of Anthropomorphism in AI-Enabled Technology. In: T. X. Bui (ed.) Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Grand Wailea, Maui, Hawaii, 2021. P. 4053—4062. http://dx.doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.493.
Luhmann N. (1992) What is Сommunication? Communication Theory. Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 251—259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00042.x.
Malkin N., Deatrick J., Tong A., Wijesekera P., Egelman S., Wagner D. (2019) Privacy Attitudes of Smart Speaker Users. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. No. 4. P. 250—271. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/popets-2019-0068.
Maynard D. W., Clayman S. E. (1991) The Diversity of Ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 385—418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.17.1.385.
Moussawi S., Koufaris M., Benbunan-Fich R. (2021) How Perceptions of Intelligence and Anthropomorphism affect Adoption of Personal Intelligent Agents. Electronic Markets. Vol. 31. P. 343—364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00411-w.
Nwoye O. G. (1992) Linguistic Politeness and Socio-Cultural Variations of the Notion of Face. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 18. No. 4. P. 309—328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166%2892%2990092-P.
Ribino P. (2023) The Role of Politeness in Human–Machine Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Perspectives. Artificial Intelligence Review. Vol. 56. P. 445—482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10540-1.
Salles A., Evers K., Farisco M. (2020) Anthropomorphism in AI. AJOB Neuroscience. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 88—95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1740350.
Smith E., Sumner P., Hedge C., Powell G. (2021) Smart Speaker Devices Can Improve Speech Intelligibility in Adults with Intellectual Disability. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. Vol. 56. No. 3. P. 583—593. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12615.
Sztompka P. (2008) The Focus on Everyday Life: A New Turn in Sociology. European Review. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 23—37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798708000045.
Turkle S. (2005) The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. Cambridge: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6115.001.0001.
Watts R. J. (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
