  Technologies increasingly mimic human-like social behaviours. Beyond
prototypical conversational agents like chatbots, this also applies to basic
automated systems like app notifications or self-checkout machines that address
or 'talk to' users in everyday situations. Whilst early evidence suggests
social cues may enhance user experience, we lack a good understanding of when,
and why, their use may be inappropriate. Building on a survey of
English-speaking smartphone users (n=80), we conducted experience sampling,
interview, and workshop studies (n=11) to elicit people's attitudes and
preferences regarding how automated systems talk to them. We thematically
analysed examples of phrasings/conduct participants disliked, the reasons they
gave, and what they would prefer instead. One category of inappropriate
behaviour we identified regards the use of social cues as tools for
manipulation. We describe four unwanted tactics interfaces use: agents playing
on users' emotions (e.g., guilt-tripping or coaxing them), being pushy,
`mothering' users, or being passive-aggressive. Another category regards
pragmatics: personal or situational factors that can make a seemingly friendly
or helpful utterance come across as rude, tactless, or invasive. These include
failing to account for relevant contextual particulars (e.g., embarrassing
users in public); expressing obviously false personalised care; or treating a
user in ways that they find inappropriate for the system's role or the nature
of their relationship. We discuss these behaviours in terms of an emerging
'social' class of dark and anti-patterns. Drawing from participant
recommendations, we offer suggestions for improving how interfaces treat people
in interactions, including broader normative reflections on treating users
respectfully.
