Data underlying the publication: Virtual Coaching for Smoking Cessation: What are Users Preference in Ethical Principles for Human Feedback Allocation

This is the analysis code underlying the paper "Virtual Coaching for Smoking Cessation: What are Users Preference in Ethical Principles for Human Feedback Allocation" by Glebs Labunskis, Nele Albers, and Willem-Paul Brinkman. In this paper, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis of people's preferences of ethical principles that a virtual assistant for smoking cessation should follow for deciding how to allocate human feedback.<strong>Data:</strong>Our analysis is based on the data collected in an online experiment in which more than 500 daily smokers interacted with the text-based virtual coach (i.e., a conversational agent) in up to 5 sessions. In each session, the virtual assistant proposed a new preparatory activity for quitting smoking or becoming more physically active, with the latter possibly aiding the former. After the 5 sessions, participants filled in a post-questionnaire in which they answered a set of questions. Our paper focuses on people's free-text responses to the question "When a human coach cannot give feedback to everybody after each session due to time constraints, which principles/rules do you think the virtual coach should follow to decide when a human coach should give feedback to people who are preparing to quit smoking?". The complete dataset can be found here: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/78CNR.

本文是Glebs Labunskis、Nele Albers和Willem-Paul Brinkman所著论文《戒烟虚拟辅导：用户对人类反馈分配伦理原则的偏好是什么》的分析代码。本论文针对戒烟虚拟助手在决定如何分配人类反馈时应遵循的伦理原则，开展了关于人们偏好的混合方法分析。<strong>数据：</strong>我们的分析基于一项在线实验收集的数据，该实验中500余名每日吸烟者与基于文本的虚拟教练（即对话智能体，conversational agent）进行了最多5次会话。在每次会话中，虚拟助手会提出一项新的戒烟准备活动或增加身体活动的准备活动，后者可能对前者有所帮助。5次会话结束后，参与者填写了一份后测问卷，回答了一系列问题。本论文重点关注人们对以下问题的自由文本回答："当人类教练因时间限制无法在每次会话后给所有人反馈时，你认为虚拟教练应遵循哪些原则/规则来决定何时向准备戒烟的人提供人类教练的反馈？"完整数据集可在此处获取：https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/78CNR。