Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

"I don't know anything about laptops!" - User Perception of Digital Product Advisors Adapting to Their Knowledge Levels

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Text-based product advisors should present technical specifications together with performance categories and plain-language explanations, because this combination helps novices learn and feel supported while leaving experts' experience…

desk verdict Useful empirical comparison of knowledge-level adaptation formats; descriptive results hold, but the 'explanations are crucial' mechanism is confounded with simpler wording, so the causal claims need softening. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06091 v1 pith:GWW3BXDR submitted 2026-08-06 cs.HC cs.IR

Kevin Schott , Andrea Papenmeier , Daniel Hienert , Dagmar Kern This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.IR
keywords conversationalcommerceproductsearchdigitalassistantinformeddecision-makingpersonalizationdomainknowledgeknowledge-leveladaptationuserperception
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how a text-based product advisor should present complex technical information to shoppers with different levels of domain knowledge. In a chatbot-assisted laptop search experiment with 251 participants, it compares four formats: technical specifications alone, with performance categories, with attribute explanations, or with both. The central finding is that novices perceive formats containing attribute explanations (TE and TCE) as more helpful and report more learning, and they find the combined format (TCE) more appropriate in information quantity than plain specs or categories alone. Experts show no significant differences across any format, which the authors read as evidence that adding novice-friendly explanations does not harm experts. If correct, this supports a single inclusive interface that gives every user technical details, categories, and explanations.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the four-condition information presentation format implemented in a rule-based chatbot (Cleo) for laptop searching: technical information only (T), plus performance categories (TC), plus attribute explanations (TE), or both (TCE). Performance categories are plain-language bands such as 'entry-level to mid-range configuration' for RAM; attribute explanations are one-sentence descriptions that also replace technical abbreviations with everyday terms (e.g., 'RAM (working memory)'). This manipulation isolates the type and amount of supplementary information presented with each attribute recommendation, and the comparison of novice and expert ratings across the four formats is what carries the argument.

What would settle it

Run the same laptop-advisor study with a crossed design: explanations on or off crossed with plain or technical terminology. If novices show the same benefit whenever terminology is plain, with no extra effect from the explanatory sentence, the paper's central mechanism fails; if the explanation effect persists even with technical terms, the claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that knowledge-level accommodation in a text-based product advisor works best when technical attribute recommendations are supplemented with both performance categories and plain-language attribute explanations, and that this accommodation can be offered to everyone rather than hidden from experts. In the authors' data, novices rated the explanation-bearing conditions (TE and TCE) significantly more helpful than categories alone (TC) and reported significantly higher perceived learning than in T or TC; novices also rated TCE more appropriate than T and TC in information quantity. Experts exhibited no significant differences across T, TC, TE, and TCE on any dependent measure, which the authors interpret as showing that the extra information did not detract from expert experience. Qualitative responses reinforce the account: attribute confusion was novices' dominant concern (60% in T and TC, falling to 34% in TCE), while experts mainly asked for additional attributes such as price and brand rather than objecting to the supplements.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the explanatory sentences, and not the simpler wording that came with them, are what helped novices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A text-based product advisor for technical products should default to combining technical specifications, performance categories, and attribute explanations (TCE), since novices rate it more appropriate and more helpful.
  • Performance categories should not be presented alone: novices found TC no better than plain specs and rated it less appropriate than TCE, so explanations appear necessary for categories to be useful.
  • There is no empirical reason to strip supplementary information for experts in a single interface, because experts' perceptions did not differ across conditions.
  • In this domain, explanations primarily serve novices' learning and comprehension; designers should pair any category label with a short explanation of what the attribute does.
  • User agency and personalization remain wanted by both groups, so advisors should offer options and tailor to the stated use case rather than only controlling information type.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: The TE condition changes two variables at once (it adds explanations and replaces technical abbreviations with everyday terms), so the paper's attribution of novice gains to 'explanations' is not fully isolated; a crossed design separating wording from explanation could test this.
  • Extension: The same presentation-format logic could be adapted to other technical consumer domains (smartphones, cameras, software plans) and to LLM-based advisors, where these formats could be used as prompt templates with explanation depth scaled by user signals.
  • Extension: The experts' indifference may be specific to short, sequential attribute messages; in denser or more interactive interfaces the expertise reversal effect might reappear, so 'inclusive by default' should be rechecked for information-heavy designs.
  • Extension: The 'perceived learning' measure is a self-report; an objective knowledge test before and after the interaction would show whether the higher perceived learning corresponds to actual comprehension gains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a between-subjects online experiment (n = 251) on how a rule-based text-based product advisor ('Cleo') should present laptop attribute information to users with different self-reported domain knowledge. Four presentation formats are compared: technical information only (T), technical information plus performance categories (TC), technical information plus attribute explanations (TE), and a combined format (TCE). Novices (self-rated knowledge 1–4) and experts (5–7) rated perceived appropriateness of information quantity, perceived learning, relevance, trust, and helpfulness, and answered one open question. The main findings are that novices rate TE and TCE as more helpful and more conducive to perceived learning than T and TC, novices rate TCE as more appropriate in information quantity than T and TC, and experts show no significant differences across conditions. The authors derive four design guidelines: use TCE by default, keep a single inclusive interface, avoid standalone categories, and support user agency and personalization.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers practically useful guidance for conversational commerce: simple, scripted additions to technical product information can improve novices' perceived learning and information-appropriateness without measurably harming experts. The study has notable strengths: the expertise split threshold was set a priori using an archival dataset, stratified random assignment was used, materials and anonymized data are available on OSF, and the statistical analysis is appropriate for ordinal Likert data, using Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn's post-hoc tests, Benjamini-Hochberg correction, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Cliff's delta effect sizes. The central caveat is that the causal interpretation — that explanations specifically, rather than simpler terminology, drive novices' benefits — is not identifiable from the reported design, and several design guidelines depend on that interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.3 and Table 1] The TE and TCE conditions change two factors at once relative to T and TC: they add a plain-language explanatory sentence, and they replace technical abbreviations with less specialized terms (for example, 'RAM' becomes 'RAM (working memory)' in Table 1). Consequently, every contrast that is used to attribute novices' higher perceived learning or helpfulness to explanations (TE vs. T, TCE vs. TC) also varies terminology simplicity. The observed benefits could be driven entirely by the simplified wording, which would undermine the mechanistic claim in the abstract and in Section 6 that 'explanations are crucial to understand and benefit from performance categories,' as well as design guideline 3 ('avoid standalone categories'). To support the causal attribution, the authors would need an additional condition that provides plain-language terminology without explanatory sentences, or a condition that holds terminology constant while varying only the explanatory content. As it stands, the manuscript should either add such a condition or substantially reframe the conclusions to describe the benefits of the whole TE/TCE package rather than of explanations specifically.
  2. [§5.1.6] The claim that the attribute-recommendation accuracy measure 'ensured that the perceived plausibility of Cleo's recommendations did not confound participants' evaluations' is not supported by the reported analysis. The section only reports overall means and standard deviations for novices and experts, with no statistical comparison across the four conditions or between the two expertise groups, and the 66 'I don't know' responses are excluded without justification. Without showing that accuracy ratings did not differ by condition (or at least by condition within expertise group), the assertion that accuracy was not a confound is not established. Report inferential tests for accuracy ratings across conditions and groups, and explain how the 'I don't know' responses were handled.
  3. [§5.1.1 and §5.2] The evidence for the specific guideline 'avoid standalone categories' is weaker than the presentation suggests. While novices rated TCE higher than TC in appropriateness, the direct comparison between TC and T on appropriateness was not significant (p_adj > .05), and most other TC-versus-T comparisons were not significant. The qualitative 'Attribute Confusion' difference between TC (60%) and TCE (34%) is also affected by the terminology confound described above, since TCE uses 'RAM (working memory)' while TC uses 'RAM.' The guideline is therefore reasonable as an exploratory design suggestion but should not be stated as a firm empirical conclusion without disentangling the terminology effect.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2] The caption mentions 'black and red brackets' but does not define in the caption which test each color corresponds to; please add a one-line explanation, e.g., black = Dunn's post-hoc, red = Mann-Whitney U.
  2. [References] Cliff's delta is attributed to reference [63], which is a paper on machine learning and software development; the canonical source (Cliff, 1993) should be cited instead or additionally.
  3. [§5.2] The quote from P17 contains the bracketed pronoun '[they were]' inside what appears to be a direct quotation; either use the original wording or use a standard ellipsis/bracketing convention for editorial insertions.
  4. [§4] The sentence describing the archival dataset says the threshold was 'specified before data collection' but does not state whether the archival dataset was used to set the split only, not to fit any outcome measure; clarifying this in the main text would preempt concerns about circularity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: observed user-study ratings, a priori knowledge threshold, and non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical between-subjects user study rather than a derivation, and its results are observed self-reported ratings collected across four experimental conditions. The hypotheses are directional predictions tested with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests; they are not quantities fitted to the outcome data, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The novice/expert split (1–4 vs. 5–7) was fixed before data collection using an archival dataset, but that dataset was used only to set recruitment quotas and was not used to compute perceived learning, helpfulness, appropriateness, relevance, trust, or the qualitative theme frequencies. Self-citations (Papenmeier et al. for the laptop-search scenario and task wording, Schott et al. for prior conversational-commerce context) motivate the study design and do not carry the evidential weight of the findings. The central limitation is a confound, not circularity: the TE and TCE conditions simultaneously add explanatory sentences and replace technical abbreviations with plain-language terms (Section 3.2.3 and Table 1), so the causal attribution that explanations, rather than simpler wording, drive novices' benefits is not uniquely identifiable. That is a matter of internal validity and variable confounding, not a case in which the paper's conclusion reduces by construction to its own inputs. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain makes the result equal to its premises. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical results rest on two domain assumptions: self-reported knowledge validly separates novices from experts, and the rule-based chatbot interaction is a meaningful proxy for conversational commerce. The expertise threshold is the only hand-chosen quantity; no entities are invented.

free parameters (1)
  • expertise split threshold = 4/5 on 7-point self-reported laptop knowledge
    Participants rating 1-4 are 'novices' and 5-7 are 'experts'. The cutoff was chosen before data collection using an archival dataset distribution (Section 4) and is load-bearing for every novice/expert comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Subjective self-reported domain knowledge on a 7-point scale validly approximates objective expertise, and the 1-4 vs 5-7 threshold separates novices from experts.
    Used to define groups in Section 4; acknowledged as a self-report limitation (Section 7) and supported by correlations from prior work [13, 43].
  • domain assumption The rule-based advisor interaction is representative enough of conversational commerce for perception measurements.
    Cleo uses a predefined flow; authors acknowledge reduced ecological validity and lack of dynamic grounding (Section 7).
  • domain assumption Conditions differ only in the intended information presentation; the four scripts are otherwise equivalent.
    Held constant message structure and wording across use cases (Section 3.2), but TE/TCE also de-abbreviate terminology, bundling a second manipulation.
  • standard math Non-parametric test assumptions: independent samples, ordinal data; BH control within families.
    Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn's, and Mann-Whitney U tests are used appropriately, and the non-parametric approach matches the distributional properties of the data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "I don't know anything about laptops!" - User Perception of Digital Product Advisors Adapting to Their Knowledge Levels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GWW3BXDR

@misc{pith2026260806091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "I don't know anything about laptops!" - User Perception of Digital Product Advisors Adapting to Their Knowledge Levels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GWW3BXDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06091}
}
read the original abstract

Conversational commerce uses digital assistants to support the search process and decision-making in e-commerce. Effective communication in these interactions can be facilitated by assistants adapting their communication style to users and supporting shared understanding. An open challenge in this context is adapting the presentation of complex product information to users with varying levels of domain knowledge. To investigate strategies for such knowledge-level adaptation, we set up a chatbot-assisted laptop search scenario. In a between-subjects experiment (n = 251), we examined novice and expert perceptions of product attribute recommendations presented as technical information only (T), or augmented with performance categories (TC), attribute explanations (TE), or both (TCE). For novices, approaches with explanations (TE, TCE) were perceived as more helpful and led to higher perceived learning than those without. Novices also rated the combined approach (TCE) more appropriate than the baseline (T) and TC in terms of information quantity, indicating that explanations are crucial to understand and benefit from performance categories. Critically, experts showed no significant differences across conditions, suggesting that providing supplementary information beneficial to novices did not detract from their experience. We distill these findings into four concrete design guidelines for inclusive text-based product advisors in technical domains: use TCE by default; keep a single inclusive interface; avoid standalone categories; and support user agency and personalize to the stated use case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interface for our product advisor “Cleo” (condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Box plots comparing novices’ (blue) and experts’ (orange) ratings across our dependent variables. Black horizontal lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tarek Ait Baha, Mohamed El Hajji, Youssef Es-Saady, and Hammou Fadili. 2023. The Power of Personalization: A Systematic Review of Personality-Adaptive Chatbots.SN Computer Science4, 5 (30 Aug 2023), 661. doi:10.1007/s42979-023- 02092-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s42979-023- 2023

  2. [2]

    Alba and J

    Joseph W. Alba and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1987. Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.Journal of Consumer Research13, 4 (1987), 411–454. http://www.jstor. org/stable/2489367

    work page arXiv 1987

  3. [3]

    Mohammad Amin Kuhail, Mohamed Bahja, Ons Al-Shamaileh, Justin Thomas, Amina Alkazemi, and Joao Negreiros. 2024. Assessing the Impact of Chatbot- Human Personality Congruence on User Behavior: A Chatbot-Based Advising System Case.IEEE Access12 (2024), 71761–71782. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024. 3402977

    doi:10.1109/access.2024 2024

  4. [4]

    Sungeun An, Robert Moore, Eric Young Liu, and Guang-Jie Ren. 2021. Recip- ient Design for Conversational Agents: Tailoring Agent’s Utterance to User’s Knowledge. InProceedings of the 3rd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (Bilbao (online), Spain)(CUI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 30, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3...

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Farshid Anvari and Hien Minh Thi Tran. 2013. Persona ontology for user centred design professionals. InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Infor- mation Systems Management and Evaluation, John Blooma, Mathews Nkhoma, and Nelson Leung (Eds.). Academic Conferences and Publishing International, United Kingdom, 35–44. International Conference o...

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Ebrahim Babaei, Tilman Dingler, Benjamin Tag, and Eduardo Velloso. 2025. Should we use the NASA-TLX in HCI? A review of theoretical and method- ological issues around Mental Workload Measurement.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies201 (2025), 103515. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103515

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Janarthanan Balakrishnan and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. 2021. Conversational com- merce: entering the next stage of AI-powered digital assistants.Annals of Opera- tions Research(12 Apr 2021). doi:10.1007/s10479-021-04049-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10479-021-04049-5 2021

  8. [8]

    Mark Blokpoel, Marlieke van Kesteren, Arjen Stolk, Pim Haselager, Ivan Toni, and Iris van Rooij. 2012. Recipient design in human communication: simple heuristics or perspective taking?Front Hum Neurosci6 (Sept. 2012), 253. doi:10. 3389/fnhum.2012.00253

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Simone Borsci, Martin Schmettow, Alessio Malizia, Alan Chamberlain, and Frank van der Velde. 2023. A confirmatory factorial analysis of the Chatbot Usability Scale: a multilanguage validation.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing27, 2 (01 Apr 2023), 317–330. doi:10.1007/s00779-022-01690-0

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101

    2006

  3. [11]

    Saša Brdnik, Tjaša Heričko, and Boštjan Šumak. 2022. Intelligent User Interfaces and Their Evaluation: A Systematic Mapping Study.Sensors22, 15 (2022). doi:10. 3390/s22155830

    2022

  4. [12]

    Susan E Brennan. 1998. The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. InSocial and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communi- cation(1 ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, 201–225

    1998

  5. [13]

    Merrie Brucks. 1985. The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Informa- tion Search Behavior*.Journal of Consumer Research12, 1 (06 1985), 1–

    1985

  6. [14]

    Pengshan Cai, Hui Wan, Fei Liu, Mo Yu, Hong Yu, and Sachindra Joshi. 2022. Learning as Conversation: Dialogue Systems Reinforced for Information Acqui- sition. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ...

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Clark and Susan E

    Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan. 1991.Grounding in communication. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 127–149. doi:10.1037/ 10096-006

    1991

  8. [16]

    arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-pdf/12/1/1/5067463/12-1-1.pdf doi:10.1086/209031

    doi

  9. [17]

    Mentis, Mary Beth Rosson, John M

    Gregorio Convertino, Helena M. Mentis, Mary Beth Rosson, John M. Carroll, Aleksandra Slavkovic, and Craig H. Ganoe. 2008. Articulating common ground in cooperative work: content and process. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Florence,...

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Jamie DeCoster, Marcello Gallucci, and Anne-Marie R. Iselin. 2011. Best Prac- tices for Using Median Splits, Artificial Categorization, and their Continuous Alternatives.Journal of Experimental Psychopathology2, 2 (2011), 197–209. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.008310 doi:1...

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Santosh D’Mello and Arthur Graesser. 2012. Malleability of students’ perceptions of an affect-sensitive tutor and its influence on learning.Proceedings of the 25th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS-25 (01 2012), 432–437

    2012

  12. [20]

    David Gefen, Elena Karahanna, and Detmar W. Straub. 2003. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model.MIS Quarterly27, 1 (2003), 51–90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036519

    2003

  13. [21]

    2007.Communication Accommodation Theory

    Howard Giles and Tania Ogay. 2007.Communication Accommodation Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US, 293–310

    2007

  14. [22]

    Goldsmith

    Elizabeth Goldsmith and Ronald E. Goldsmith. 1997. Gender Differences in Perceived and Real Knowledge of Financial Investments.Psychological Reports 80, 1 (1997), 236–238. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.80.1.236 doi:10.2466/ pr0.1997.80.1.236

    1997 doi

  15. [23]

    Tomoya Higuchi and Michimasa Inaba. 2024. Interactive Dialogue Interface for Personalized News Article Comprehension. InProceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, Tatsuya Kawahara, Vera Demberg, Stefan Ultes, Koji Inoue, Shi...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    1994.The virtual classroom: learning without limits via computer networks

    Starr Roxanne Hiltz. 1994.The virtual classroom: learning without limits via computer networks. Ablex Publishing Corp., USA

    1994

  17. [25]

    Nina Hollender, Cristian Hofmann, Michael Deneke, and Bernhard Schmitz. 2010. Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior26, 6 (2010), 1278–1288. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05. 031 Online Interactivity: Role of Technolo...

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Wallace, and Stacey D

    Leila Homaeian, James R. Wallace, and Stacey D. Scott. 2021. Joint Action Storyboards: A Framework for Visualizing Communication Grounding Costs. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 28 (April 2021), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3449102

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Shen Huiyang and Wang Min. 2022. Improving Interaction Expe- rience through Lexical Convergence: The Prosocial Effect of Lexical Alignment in Human-Human and Human-Computer Interactions.In- ternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction38, 1 (2022), 28–41. arXiv:https://doi...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Mourad Jbene, Abdellah Chehri, Rachid Saadane, Smail Tigani, and Gwanggil Jeon. 2025. Intent detection for task-oriented con- versational agents: A comparative study of recurrent neural net- works and transformer models.Expert Systems42, 2 (2025), e13712. arXiv:https://onlinel...

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Samuel C. Karpen. 2018. The Social Psychology of Biased Self-Assessment. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education82, 5 (2018), 6299. doi:10.5688/ ajpe6299

    2018

  22. [30]

    Ketelaar, Lotte M

    Paul E. Ketelaar, Lotte M. Willemsen, Laura Sleven, and Peter Kerkhof

  23. [31]

    Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Georgios Spithourakis, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016. A Persona-Based Neural Conversation Model. InProceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Katrin Erk and Noah...

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Eun-Jung Lee. 2016. How perceived cognitive needs fulfillment affect consumer attitudes toward the customized product: The moderating role of consumer knowledge.Computers in Human Behavior64 (2016), 152–162. doi:10.1016/j.chb. 2016.06.017

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW, Article 72 (Nov. 2019), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3359174

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Maybury and Wolf Wahlster

    Mark T. Maybury and Wolf Wahlster. 1998.Intelligent user interfaces: an intro- duction. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1–13

    1998

  27. [35]

    Lidiya Murakhovs’ka, Philippe Laban, Tian Xie, Caiming Xiong, and Chien- Sheng Wu. 2023. Salespeople vs SalesBot: Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Houda Bouam...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Chris Messina. 2024. Conversational commerce. When the point of sale comes to the. . . | by Chris Messina | Chris Messina | Medium. https://medium.com/chris- messina/conversational-commerce-92e0bccfc3ff. Accessed: 2024-02-15

    2024

  29. [37]

    Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, USA)(CHI ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 152–158. doi:10.1145/191666.191729

    1994

  30. [38]

    Myungwoo Nam, Jing Wang, and Angela Y. Lee. 2012. The Differ- ence between Differences: How Expertise Affects Diagnosticity of At- tribute Alignability.Journal of Consumer Research39, 4 (03 2012), 736–

    2012

  31. [39]

    Fred G. W. C. Paas. 1992. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem- solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach.Journal of Educational Psychology84, 4 (1992), 429–434. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429

    1992 doi

  32. [40]

    Andrea Papenmeier, Alexander Frummet, and Dagmar Kern. 2022. “Mhm... ” – Conversational Strategies For Product Search Assistants. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval(Regensburg, Germany)(CHIIR ’22). Association for Computing Mach...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Oppenheimer, Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko

    Daniel M. Oppenheimer, Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko. 2009. Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology45, 4 (2009), 867–872. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009. 03.009

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    Andrea Papenmeier and Elin Anna Topp. 2023. Ah, Alright, Okay! Communicat- ing Understanding in Conversational Product Search. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces(Eindhoven, Nether- lands)(CUI ’23). Association for Computing Mach...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Raju, Subhash C

    P.S. Raju, Subhash C. Lonial, and W. Glynn Mangold. 1995. Differential Effects of Subjective Knowledge, Objective Knowledge, and Usage Experience on Decision Making: An Exploratory Investigation.Journal of Consumer Psychology4, 2 (1995), 153–180. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0402_04

    1995 doi

  36. [44]

    Andrea Papenmeier, Dagmar Kern, Daniel Hienert, Alfred Sliwa, Ahmet Aker, and Norbert Fuhr. 2021. Starting Conversations with Search Engines - Interfaces that Elicit Natural Language Queries. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval(C...

    2021

  37. [45]

    Jennifer Rowley. 2000. Product search in e-shopping: a review and research propositions.Journal of Consumer Marketing17, 1 (01 Jan 2000), 20–35. doi:10. 1108/07363760010309528

    2000

  38. [46]

    Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson

    Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest system- atics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.Language50, 4 (1974), 696–735. doi:10.1353/lan.1974.0010 Volume 50, Number 4 (Part 1), December 1974

    1974

  39. [47]

    Sergio Román and Dawn Iacobucci. 2010. Antecedents and consequences of adaptive selling confidence and behavior: a dyadic analysis of salespeople and their customers.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science38, 3 (01 Jun 2010), 363–382. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0166-9

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    Ali Sher. 2009. Assessing the Relationship of Student-Instructor and Student- Student Interaction to Student Learning and Satisfaction in Web-based Online Learning Environment.Journal of Interactive Online Learning8 (01 2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    2017.Designing the User Interface Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Global Edition

    Ben Shneiderman, Maxine Cohen, Steven Jacobs, Catherine Plaisant, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2017.Designing the User Interface Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Global Edition. Pearson Deutschland. 624 pages. https://elibrary.pearson.de/book/...

    2017

  42. [50]

    Kevin Schott, Andrea Papenmeier, Daniel Hienert, and Dagmar Kern. 2024. What Did I Say Again? Relating User Needs to Search Outcomes in Conversational Commerce. InProceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2024(Karlsruhe, Germany) (MuC ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yo...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Paul Chandler Slava Kalyuga, Paul Ayres and John Sweller. 2003. The Expertise Reversal Effect.Educational Psychologist38, 1 (2003), 23–31. https://doi.org/10. 1207/S15326985EP3801_4

    2003

  44. [52]

    Laura Spillner and Nina Wenig. 2021. Talk to Me on My Level – Linguistic Alignment for Chatbots. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction(Toulouse & Virtual, France)(MobileHCI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Michael Shumanov and Lester Johnson. 2021. Making conversations with chat- bots more personalized.Computers in Human Behavior117 (2021), 106627. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106627

    2021

  46. [54]

    Sumit Srivastava, Mariët Theune, and Alejandro Catala. 2023. The Role of Lexical Alignment in Human Understanding of Explanations by Conversational Agents. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Sydney, NSW, Australia)(IUI ’23). Asso...

    2023

  47. [55]

    John Sweller. 2010. Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load.Educational Psychology Review22, 2 (01 Jun 2010), 123–138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    Spiro and Barton A

    Rosann L. Spiro and Barton A. Weitz. 1990. Adaptive Selling: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Validity.Journal of Marketing Research27, 1 (1990), 61–69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172551

    1990

  49. [57]

    Jay Thakkar, Suresh Kolekar, Shilpa Gite, Biswajeet Pradhan, and Abdullah Alamri. 2024. Evaluating the Adaptability of Large Language Models for Knowledge-aware Question and Answering.International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems17, 1 (2024). doi:10.2478/ijssi...

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Antonia Tolzin and Andreas Janson. 2025. Uncovering the mechanisms of com- mon ground in human–agent interaction: review and future directions for con- versational agent research.Internet Researchahead-of-print, ahead-of-print (01 Jan 2025). doi:10.1108/INTR-06-2023-0514

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    John Sweller. 2011. CHAPTER TWO - Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 55. Academic Press, 37–76. doi:10.1016/B978-0- 12-387691-1.00002-8

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    2018.Conversational Commerce – A New Era for Service Business Development?Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 81–100

    Sven Tuzovic and Stefanie Paluch. 2018.Conversational Commerce – A New Era for Service Business Development?Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 81–100. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-22426-4_4

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    Debbie Vigar-Ellis, Leyland Pitt, and Pierre Berthon. 2015. Knowing what they know: A managerial perspective on consumer knowledge.Business Horizons 58, 6 (2015), 679–685. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.07.005 SPECIAL ISSUE: THE MAGIC OF SECRETS

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    Manos Tsagkias, Tracy Holloway King, Surya Kallumadi, Vanessa Murdock, and Maarten de Rijke. 2021. Challenges and research opportunities in eCommerce search and recommendations.SIGIR Forum54, 1, Article 2 (feb 2021), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3451964.3451966

    2021

  55. [63]

    Zhiyuan Wan, Xin Xia, David Lo, and Gail C. Murphy. 2021. How does Machine Learning Change Software Development Practices?IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering47, 9 (2021), 1857–1871. doi:10.1109/TSE.2019.2937083

    2021

  56. [64]

    Yuyu Yang, Kelsey Urgo, Jaime Arguello, and Robert Capra. 2025. Search+Chat: Integrating Search and GenAI to Support Users with Learning-oriented Search Tasks. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’25). Associatio...

    2025

  57. [65]

    Kalro, and Dinesh Sharma

    Preeti Virdi, Arti D. Kalro, and Dinesh Sharma. 2020. Online decision aids: the role of decision-making styles and decision-making stages.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management48, 6 (01 Jan 2020), 555–574. doi:10.1108/IJRDM- 02-2019-0068

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    Zhenqi Zhao, Mariët Theune, Sumit Srivastava, and Daniel Braun. 2024. Exploring Lexical Alignment in a Price Bargain Chatbot. InProceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces(Luxembourg, Luxembourg)(CUI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yo...

    2024

  59. [68]

    Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?. InProceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ...

    2018 doi

  60. [750]

    arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-pdf/39/4/736/17931392/39-4- 736.pdf doi:10.1086/664987

    doi

  61. [2015]

    arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article- pdf/20/6/649/19492556/jjcmcom0649.pdf doi:10.1111/jcc4.12139

    The Good, the Bad, and the Expert: How Consumer Ex- pertise Affects Review Valence Effects on Purchase Intentions in On- line Product Reviews.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20, 6 (11 2015), 649–666. arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article- pdf/20/6/649/19492556...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.