mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures

arXiv 2303.00164 ↗First posted 1 Mar 2023cs.HCcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Despite huge gains in performance in natural language understanding via large language models in recent years, voice assistants still often fail to meet user expectations. In this study, we conducted a mixed-methods analysis of how voice assistant failures affect users' trust in their voice assistants. To illustrate how users have experienced these failures, we contribute a crowdsourced dataset of 199 voice assistant failures, categorized across 12 failure sources. Relying on interview and survey data, we find that certain failures, such as those due to overcapturing users' input, derail user trust more than others. We additionally examine how failures impact users' willingness to rely on voice assistants for future tasks. Users often stop using their voice assistants for specific tasks that result in failures for a short period of time before resuming similar usage. We demonstrate the importance of low stakes tasks, such as playing music, towards building trust after failures.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 1 Mar 2023.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.

11 papers.