A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures
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
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.
11 papers.
- 2023NLP for Maternal Healthcare: Perspectives and Guiding Principles in the Age of LLMscited by 14
- 2024Towards More Trustworthy and Interpretable LLMs for Code through Syntax-Grounded Explanationscited by 11
- 2025Toward Metaphor-Fluid Conversation Design for Voice User Interfacescited by 5
- 2026Still Between Us? Evaluating and Improving Voice Assistant Robustness to Third-Party Interruptionscited by 3
- 2024AI Delegates with a Dual Focus: Ensuring Privacy and Strategic Self-Disclosurecited by 2
- 2024LLM-Mediated Domain-Specific Voice Agents: The Case of TextileBotcited by 1
- 2025A Multimodal GUI Architecture for Interfacing with LLM-Based Conversational Assistantscited by 1
- 2026TurnNat: Automatic Evaluation of Turn-Taking Naturalness in Dyadic Spoken Dialoguecited by 1
- 2025Mapping the Trust Terrain: LLMs in Software Engineering -- Insights and Perspectivescited by 0
- 2026Unheard in the Digital Age: Rethinking AI Bias and Speech Diversitycited by 0
- 2026Beyond Naturalness: Probing Automated Text-To-Speech Evaluators on Linguistically Grounded Dimensionscited by 0
- 2026Beyond Naturalness: Probing Automated Text-To-Speech Evaluators on Linguistically Grounded Dimensions10 Aug 2026
- 2026TurnNat: Automatic Evaluation of Turn-Taking Naturalness in Dyadic Spoken Dialogue1 Jul 2026
- 2026Still Between Us? Evaluating and Improving Voice Assistant Robustness to Third-Party Interruptions19 Apr 2026
- 2026Unheard in the Digital Age: Rethinking AI Bias and Speech Diversity26 Jan 2026
- 2025A Multimodal GUI Architecture for Interfacing with LLM-Based Conversational Assistants31 Aug 2025
- 2025Mapping the Trust Terrain: LLMs in Software Engineering -- Insights and Perspectives18 Mar 2025
- 2025Toward Metaphor-Fluid Conversation Design for Voice User Interfaces17 Feb 2025
- 2024AI Delegates with a Dual Focus: Ensuring Privacy and Strategic Self-Disclosure26 Sep 2024
- 2024Towards More Trustworthy and Interpretable LLMs for Code through Syntax-Grounded Explanations12 Jul 2024
- 2024LLM-Mediated Domain-Specific Voice Agents: The Case of TextileBot15 Jun 2024
- 2023NLP for Maternal Healthcare: Perspectives and Guiding Principles in the Age of LLMs19 Dec 2023