REVIEW 3 cited by
AI Conversational Interviewing: Transforming Surveys with LLMs as Adaptive Interviewers
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Traditional methods for eliciting people's opinions face a trade-off between depth and scale: structured surveys enable large-scale data collection but limit respondents' ability to voice their opinions in their own words, while conversational interviews provide deeper insights but are resource-intensive. This study explores the potential of replacing human interviewers with large language models (LLMs) to conduct scalable conversational interviews. Our goal is to assess the performance of AI Conversational Interviewing and to identify opportunities for improvement in a controlled environment. We conducted a small-scale, in-depth study with university students who were randomly assigned to a conversational interview by either AI or human interviewers, both employing identical questionnaires on political topics. Various quantitative and qualitative measures assessed interviewer adherence to guidelines, response quality, participant engagement, and overall interview efficacy. The findings indicate the viability of AI Conversational Interviewing in producing quality data comparable to traditional methods, with the added benefit of scalability. We publish our data and materials for re-use and present specific recommendations for effective implementation.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
"If we misunderstand the client, we misspend 100 hours": Exploring conversational AI and response types for information elicitation
In a 2x2 experiment with 50 mock clients, conversational AI and choice-based responses improved response clarity but lowered perceived dependability of an elicitation tool.
-
Mic Drop or Data Flop? Evaluating the Fitness for Purpose of AI Voice Interviewers for Data Collection within Quantitative & Qualitative Research Contexts
AI voice interviewers are already fit for closed-ended surveys and partially for open-ended interviews, but transcription, emotion, and probing weaknesses limit qualitative use.
-
Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences: A history and outlook
AI and social science have co-evolved for 75 years through rapid technological adoption and slower scientific consolidation, with direct human-focused AI studies still scarce.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.