Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 67, No. 2, pp.5-45
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Apr 2023
Received 10 Jun 2022 Revised 20 Mar 2023 Accepted 21 Mar 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2023.67.2.001

인공지능 맞춤화가 챗봇 이용자의 욕설 사용 중단의도와 챗봇 지속이용의도에 미치는 영향 : 심리적 반발의 매개효과

최어진*** ; 박남기****
***연세대학교 일반대학원 언론홍보영상학과 석사 eujin2219@gmail.com
****연세대학교 언론홍보영상학부 교수 npark@yonsei.ac.kr
The Effect of AI Customization on Chatbot Users’ Intentions to Stop Using Offensive Language and to Continue to Use AI Chatbot : The Mediating Role of Psychological Reactance
Eojin Choi*** ; Namkee Park****
***M.A., Department of Communication, Yonsei University eujin2219@gmail.com
****Professor, Department of Communication, Yonsei University npark@yonsei.ac.kr

초록

최근 인공지능 기술의 발달과 함께 다양한 수준에서 윤리적 이슈가 발생하고 있다. 본 연구는 인공지능 챗봇 이용자가 챗봇에 욕설을 하는 비윤리적 상황에서 챗봇 맞춤화 수준에 따라 설득 효과가 어떻게 달라지는지를 살펴보았다. 설득 메시지에 의해 자유가 위협받는다고 느끼는 사람들은 심리적으로 반발하는 경향이 있으므로 본 연구는 심리적 반발 이론(psychological reactance theory: PRT)에 기반을 두었다. 따라서 인공지능 챗봇 이용 중에 발생한 비윤리적 상황에서 맞춤화 수준에 따른 설득 효과와 함께 심리적 반발감을 경유하는 매개효과를 확인하였다. 또한 인공지능 챗봇의 메시지 프레이밍에 따라 설득 효과가 어떻게 달라지는지를 살펴보기 위해 메시지 프레이밍의 조절효과와 조절된 매개효과를 검증했다. 본 연구는 2 (맞춤화 수준: 낮음 vs. 높음) × 2 (메시지 프레이밍: 긍정 vs. 부정) 개체 간 요인 실험을 설계하여 온라인 실험을 진행하였으며, 실험 참여자(N = 382)는 네 가지 조건 중 하나의 조건에 무작위로 배치되었다. 연구 결과, 맞춤화 수준이 인공지능에 욕설 사용을 중단할 행동의도와 인공지능 챗봇의 지속이용의도에 미치는 효과는 심리적 반발(분노)에 의해 매개되었다. 이러한 매개효과는 메시지 프레이밍에 의해 조절되지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 결론에서는 분석 결과를 토대로 본 연구의 함의와 한계점을 제시하였다.

Abstract

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has raised a number of ethical concerns. The present study examined how the persuasion effect differed depending upon the level of customization of AI ​​chatbot in an unethical situation where the user spoke offensive language on the AI ​​chatbot. According to studies on customization, users who were exposed to customized media or devices that transmitted messages were more likely to positively evaluate the media or devices as well as the messages themselves and to be persuaded by the messages than users who were exposed to non-customized media or devices. Also, it has been found that people experience psychological reactance, an unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when they feel a threat to or loss of their free behaviors. Previous studies have indicated that inducing people to change their attitudes or behaviors by persuasive messages could be a critical threat to their freedom. Following the claims of studies on customization and psychological reactance theory, the present study investigated the role of psychological reactance caused by AI chatbot’s message that asked to stop using offensive language related to the level of customization of the AI chatbot. In addition, message framing may play a moderating role in the association between the level of customization of AI chatbot and users’ psychological reactance. The present study divided message framing into two frames; the positive frame and the negative frame of the message that asked to stop using offensive language. Integrating these three theoretical approaches, the present study tested the mediating role of psychological reactance (anger & negative cognition) and the moderating role of message framing in the association between the level of customization and the dependent variables, including intention to stop using offensive language and intention to continuously use AI chatbot. An online experiment employed a 2 (customization level: low vs. high) X 2 (message framing: positive vs. negative) between subjects design. A total of 382 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Results showed that there was no direct effect of the level of customization on the outcome variables, but the inidrect effect was found. That is, the effect of the level of customization on both behavioral intentions to correct offensive language use and continue to use the AI chatbot was mediated by psychological reactance (anger). Specifically, the high level of customization affected anger negatively, which in turn influenced behavioral intentions negatively. However, the mediation effect was not moderated by message framing. Implications and limitations of the study findings were also discussed.

Keywords:

chatbot, AI ethics, customization, psychological reactance, message framing

키워드:

챗봇, AI 윤리, 맞춤화, 심리적 반발, 메시지 프레이밍

Acknowledgments

This study was modified from the first author’s Master’s thesis at the Department of Communication, Yonsei University(이 연구는 제1저자의 연세대학교 일반대학원 언론홍보영상학과 석사학위 논문을 수정, 보완한 것임을 밝힙니다).

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of the Republic of Korea(NRF-2021S1A5A2A0107008611)(본 논문은 2021년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2021S1A5A2A0107008611)).

References

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 261-277. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076477]
  • André, Q., Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., Crum, A., Frank, D., Goldstein, W., ... & Yang, H. (2018). Consumer choice and autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Customer Needs and Solutions, 5(1), 28-37. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0085-8]
  • Beam, M. A., & Kosicki, G. M. (2014). Personalized news portals: Filtering systems and increased news exposure. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(1), 59-77. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013514411]
  • Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192-203. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379503200206]
  • Brahnam, S., & De Angeli, A. (2012). Gender affordances of conversational agents. Interacting with Computers, 24(3), 139-153. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.05.001]
  • Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085]
  • Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1-16. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209031]
  • Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voulodakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 213-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046.n12]
  • Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengtsson, B., Ramirez, A. Jr., Dunbar, N. E., & Miczo, N. (1999). Testing the interactivity model: Communication processes, partner assessments, and the quality of collaborative work. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 33-56. [https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1999.11518255]
  • Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M., Berntson, G. G., Nouriani, B., & Spiegel, D. (2006). Loneliness within a nomological net: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 1054-1085. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.007]
  • Carnevale, P. J. (2008). Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(1), 51-63. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9090-x]
  • Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from "feeling right." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388-404. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388]
  • Chen, G. M., Chock, T. M., Gozigian, H., Rogers, R., Sen, A., Schweisberger, V. N., ... & Wang, Y. (2011). Personalizing news websites attracts young readers. Newspaper Research Journal, 32(4), 22-38. [https://doi.org/10.1177/073953291103200403]
  • Cho, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2022). How do we like our online dates—customized or personalized?: The differential effects of user vs. system tailoring on date preferences. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, 107037. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107037]
  • Cho, H., & Sands, L. (2011). Gain-and loss-frame sun safety messages and psychological reactance of adolescents. Communication Research Reports, 28(4), 308-317. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.616242]
  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.
  • Dillard, J. P., Plotnick, C. A., Godbold, L. C., Freimuth, V. S., & Edgar, T. (1996). The multiple affective outcomes of AIDS PSAs: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23(1), 44-72. [https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001002]
  • Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144-168. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815]
  • DiSalvo, C., & Gemperle, F. (2003, June). From seduction to fulfillment: The use of anthropomorphic form in design. Paper presented at the Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces 2003, Pittsburgh, PA. [https://doi.org/10.1145/782896.782913]
  • Dylko, I. B. (2016). How technology encourages political selective exposure. Communication Theory, 26(4), 389-409. [https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12089]
  • Fogg, B. J., & Nass, C. (1997). How users reciprocate to computers: An experiment that demonstrates behavior change. In CHI'97 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 331-332). New York: ACM Press. [https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120419]
  • Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2017). Source customization reduces psychological reactance to a persuasive message via user control and identity perceptions. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(1), 1-12. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2017.1287023]
  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Hill, J., Ford, W. R., & Farreras, I. G. (2015). Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human–human online conversations and human–chatbot conversations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 245-250. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.026]
  • Hong, S. M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 173-182. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056001014]
  • Ischen, C., Araujo, T., van Noort, G., Voorveld, H., & Smit, E. (2020). “I am here to assist you today”: The role of entity, interactivity and experiential perceptions in chatbot persuasion. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(4), 615-639. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1834297]
  • Jang, E. (2021). Effects of moral emotions provided by a smartphone AI chatbot and its anthropomorphism on persuasion in an unethical situation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Unpublished master's thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185]
  • Kalyanaraman, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2006). The psychological appeal of personalized content in web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior?. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 110-132. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00006.x]
  • Kanda, T., Kamasima, M., Imai, M., Ono, T., Sakamoto, D., Ishiguro, H., & Anzai, Y. (2007). A humanoid robot that pretends to listen to route guidance from a human. Autonomous Robots, 22(1), 87-100. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-006-9007-6]
  • Kang, H., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). When self is the source: Effects of media customization on message processing. Media Psychology, 19(4), 561-588. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1121829]
  • Kim, K., Schmierbach, M. G., Chung, M. Y., Fraustino, J. D., Dardis, F., & Ahern, L. (2015). Is it a sense of autonomy, control, or attachment?: Exploring the effects of in-game customization on game enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 695-705. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.011]
  • Knijnenburg, B. P., Willemsen, M. C., Gantner, Z., Soncu, H., & Newell, C. (2012). Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(4), 441-504. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9118-4]
  • Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23-55. [https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781]
  • Lacey, H. M. (1979). Control, perceived control and the methodological role of cognitive constructs. In L. C. Perlmuter & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceived control (pp. 5-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • LaVoie, N. R., Quick, B. L., Riles, J. M., & Lambert, N. J. (2017). Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effective message strategy?: A test of psychological reactance theory and source appraisal. Communication Research, 44(3), 416-436. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215609669]
  • Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411-429. [https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2983]
  • Levine, L., & Bluck, S. (2004). Painting with broad strokes: Happiness and the malleability of event memory. Cognition and Emotion, 18(4), 559-574. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930341000446]
  • Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379002700310]
  • Marathe, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2011, May). What drives customization? Control or identity?. Paper presented at the CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York. [https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979056]
  • Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 219-240. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x]
  • Monk, A. F., & Blom, J. O. (2007). A theory of personalisation of appearance: Quantitative evaluation of qualitatively derived data. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(3), 237-246. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500348168]
  • Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29-54. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196896]
  • Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are machines gender neutral?: Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 864-876. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00275.x]
  • O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 296-316. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x]
  • Peracchio, L. A., & Tybout, A. M. (1996). The moderating role of prior knowledge in schema-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 177-192. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209476]
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J .T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: SpringerᐨVerlag. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1]
  • Quick, B. L., & Bates, B. R. (2010). The use of gain-or loss-frame messages and efficacy appeals to dissuade excessive alcohol consumption among college students: A test of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 15(6), 603-628. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499593]
  • Quick, B. L., & Considine, J. R. (2008). Examining the use of forceful language when designing exercise persuasive messages for adults: A test of conceptualizing reactance arousal as a two-step process. Health Communication, 23(5), 483-491. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230802342150]
  • Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2007). Further evidence that psychological reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Communication Research, 34(3), 255-276. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207300427]
  • Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Examining the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking on reactanceinducing messages, reactance, and reactance restoration. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 448-476. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00328.x]
  • Rains, S. A., & Turner, M. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 241-269. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x]
  • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3]
  • Rozin, P. (2001). Technological stigma: Some perspectives from the study of contagion. In J. Flynn, P. Slovic, & H. Kunreuther (Eds.), Risk, media, and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology (pp. 31-40). London, UK: Earthscan.
  • Shen, L. (2015). Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. Health Communication, 30(10), 975-985. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.910882]
  • Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257-268. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223004]
  • Steward, W. T., Schneider, T. R., Pizarro, J., & Salovey, P. (2003). Need for cognition moderates responses to framed smoking‐cessation messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(12), 2439-2464. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02775.x]
  • Sundar, S. S. (2008). Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In E. A. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 72-88). New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203926864-12]
  • UNESCO & EQUALS Skills Coalition (2019). I'd blush if I could: Closing gender divides in digital skills through education. Retrieved 03/11/22 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367416
  • Updegraff, J. A., & Rothman, A. J. (2013). Health message framing: Moderators, mediators, and mysteries. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(9), 668-679. [https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12056]
  • Vesanen, J. (2007). What is personalization?: A conceptual framework. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5-6), 409-418. [https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710737534]
  • Worchel, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Effect of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 18-22. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028620]
  • Xiao, J., Stasko, J., & Catrambone, R. (2007, May). The role of choice and customization on users' interaction with embodied conversational agents: Effects on perception and performance. Paper presented at the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA. [https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240820]
  • Yan, C., Dillard, J. P., & Shen, F. (2010). The effects of mood, message framing, and behavioral advocacy on persuasion. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 344-363. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01485.x]
  • Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000203]

Appendix

부록 Ⅰ. 국내 참고 문헌

  • 금희조·강혜원·진보래·신정아·최윤정·정유진·최수진·이재원·윤현정·이정현·이종임·강보라·홍남희·채정화·박주연 (2021). <AI와 더불어 살기>. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
  • 김하연 (2018). <패션제품 개인화 서비스가 소비자의 행복감에 미치는 영향-커스터마이제이션과 큐레이션을 중심으로>. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문.
  • 김현숙 (2015). 공공캠페인 메시지 수용에 영향을 미치는 개인의 반항심과 메시지 프레이밍에 대한 연구: 심리적 저항 이론과 예상이론 중심으로. <홍보학연구>, 19권 1호, 85-121.
  • 남민정·조민호 (2012). 외식고객의 성향적 조절초점, 메시지틀 및 관여도가 레스토랑 방문의도에 미치는 영향. <관광연구논총>, 24권 4호, 41-67.
  • 박남기 (2020). 인공지능과 윤리적 이슈. <언론정보연구>, 57권 3호, 122-154.
  • 유선욱·박계현·나은영 (2010). 신종플루 메시지에 대한 심리적 반발과 공포감이 예방행동의도에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 54권 3호, 27-53.
  • 유소은·홍일유·김태하·차훈상 (2016). 큐레이션 쇼핑이 온라인 구매행동에 미치는 영향. <Entrue Journal of Information Technology>, 15권 1호, 123-134.
  • 이승조 (2009). 영상물 시청에 발현된 감성 유인가의 차별적 영향과 편집속도와의 상호작용. <감성과학>, 12권 1호, 33-44.
  • 이승조·백혜림 (2011). 기아 돕기 캠페인에서 공감적 관심과 긍ㆍ부정 프레이밍이 미치는 영향: 예기된 정서와 행위 의도를 중심으로. <한국언론정보학보>, 56권 4호, 156-174.
  • 이종민·류춘렬·박상희 (2007). 광고 메시지 프레이밍 효과에 관한 연구: 개인적 관여도와 상황적 관여도의 역할 비교를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 51권 3호, 282-307.
  • 이호배·김혜원 (2000). 위협 소구 광고의 프레이밍 효과: 인지욕구와 관여도의 조절 역할. <광고학연구>, 114권 4호, 109-133.
  • 진보래 (2019). 인간과 대화형 에이전트 간 관계 형성의 효과: 챗봇의 칭찬이나 비판에 사용자 친밀감이 미치는 영향. <한국 HCI 학회 논문지>, 14권 3호, 13-20.
  • Zhieh Lor·최지향 (2020). 누가 뉴스 맞춤화 (customization)를 이용하며 시민역량에 어떤 영향을 미치는가?: 정향욕구, 뉴스 맞춤화, 의제다양성의 관계를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 64권 4호, 325-354.