Does Humanity Matter? Analyzing the Importance of Social Cues and Perceived Agency of a Computer System for the Emergence of Social Reactions during Human-Computer Interaction
Empirical studies have repeatedly shown that autonomous artificial entities elicit social behavior on the part of the human interlocutor. Various theoretical approaches have tried to explain this phenomenon. The agency assumption states that the social influence of human interaction partners (represented by avatars) will always be higher than the influence of artificial entities (represented by embodied conversational agents). Conversely, the Ethopoeia concept predicts that automatic social reactions are triggered by situations as soon as they include social cues. Both theories have been challenged in a between subjects design with two levels of agency (low: agent, high: avatar) and two interfaces with different degrees of social cues (low: textchat, high: virtual human). The results show that participants in the virtual human condition reported a stronger sense of mutual awareness, imputed more positive characteristics, and allocated more attention to the virtual human than participants in the text chat conditions. Only one result supports the agency assumption; participants who believed to interact with a human reported a stronger feeling of social presence than participants who believed to interact with an artificial entity. It is discussed to what extent these results support the social cue assumption made in the Ethopoeia approach. 1. Introduction Since the computer found its way into private households, new standards for usability were necessary. Handling the computer had to become more easy and intuitive. Designing the computer to be and act more human-like seemed to be a good solution to improve human-computer interaction. This approach seems to have an impact on the way people interact with computers. Early psychological studies show that human-like interaction styles of computer interfaces had a greater impact on individuals' self-appraisals than machine-like interaction styles [1]. Subsequently, Nass and colleagues [2, 3] proved that people show similar social behavior during human-computer interaction (HCI) by systematically adapting studies from the field of human-human interaction (HHI) to HCI. In their CASA studies (computers are social actors) they could replicate many findings from HHI, for example, that people show polite behavior towards computers [4, 5], use gender stereotypes for judging computers with female or male voices [6, 7], or reported a feeling of team spirit after being grouped in the same team with a specific computer [8]. Technological progress facilitates the development of computer interfaces with even more social cues
References
[1]
L. Quintanar, C. Crowell, J. Pryor, and J. Adampoulos, “Human computer interaction: a preliminary social psychological analysis,” Behaviour Research Methods & Instrumentation, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 210–220, 1982.
[2]
C. Nass, E. Tauber, and H. Reeder, “Anthropomorphism, agency and ethopoeia: computers as social actors,” in Proceeding of the International Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '93), pp. 111–112, 1993.
[3]
B. Reeves and C. I. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
[4]
C. Nass, J. Steuer, and E. R. Tauber, “Computer are social actors,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '94), pp. 72–78, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, April 1994.
[5]
C. Nass, Y. Moon, and P. Carney, “Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1093–1110, 1999.
[6]
C. Nass, Y. Moon, and N. Green, “Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 864–876, 1997.
[7]
C. Nass, J. Steuer, L. Henriksen, and D. C. Dryer, “Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: performance assessments of computers subsequent to “self-” or “other-” evaluations,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 543–559, 1994.
[8]
C. Nass, B. J. Fogg, and Y. Moon, “Can computers be teammates?” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 669–678, 1996.
[9]
J. N. Bailenson and J. Blascovich, “Avatars,” in Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 64–68, Berkshire Publishing Group, 2004.
[10]
J. Blascovich, J. Loomis, A. C. Beall, K. R. Swinth, C. L. Hoyt, and J. N. Bailenson, “Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology,” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 103–124, 2002.
[11]
J. Morkes, H. K. Kernal, and C. Nass, “Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication: a direct test of SRCT theory,” Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 395–435, 1999.
[12]
C. L. Hoyt, J. Blascovich, and K. R. Swinth, “Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments,” Presence, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 183–195, 2003.
[13]
R. E. Guadagno, J. Blascovich, J. N. Bailenson, and C. McCall, “Virtual humans and persuasion: the effects of agency and behavioral realism,” Media Psychology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2007.
[14]
A. von der Pütten, N. C. Kr？mer, J. Gratch, and S.-H. Kang, “‘It doesn't matter what you are!’ explaining social effects of agents and avatars,” Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1641–1650, 2010.
[15]
C. Nass and Y. Moon, “Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 81–103, 2000.
[16]
J. Gratch, A. Okhmatovskaia, F. Lamothe, S. Marsella, M. Morales, R. J. van der Werf, et al., “Virtual rapport,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer, Marina Del Rey, Calif, USA, 2006.
[17]
J. Gratch, N. Wang, J. Gerten, E. Fast, and R. Duffy, “Creating rapport with virtual agents,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA '07), C. Pelachaud, J.-C. Martin, E. André, G. Chollet, K. Karpouzis, and D. Pelé, Eds., LNAI 4722, pp. 125–138, Springer, Paris, France, 2007.
[18]
J. Gratch, N. Wang, A. Okhmatovskaia, F. Lamothe, M. Morales, and L.-P. Morency, “Can virtual humans be more engaging than real ones?” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Intelligent Multimodal Interaction Environments, Part III (HCII '07), J. Jacko, Ed., LNCS 4552, pp. 286–297, Springer, Beijing, China, 2007.
[19]
J. N. Bailenson, J. Blascovich, A. C. Beall, and J. M. Loomis, “Equilibrium theory revisited: mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments,” Presence, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 583–598, 2001.
[20]
J. N. Bailenson, J. Blascovich, A. C. Beall, and J. M. Loomis, “Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 819–833, 2003.
[21]
E. J. Langer, “Matters of mind: mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective,” Consciousness and Cognition, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 289–305, 1992.
[22]
E. J. Langer, Mindfulness, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA, 1989.
[23]
E. J. Langer and M. Moldoveanu, “The construct of mindfulness,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2000.
[24]
B. Rossen, K. Johnson, A. Deladisma, S. Lind, and B. Lok, “Virtual humans elicit skin-tone bias consistent with real-world skin-tone biases,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA '08), H. Prendinger, J. Lester, and M. Ishizuka, Eds., LNAI 5208, pp. 237–244, Springer, Tokyo, Japan, 2008.
[25]
L. Hoffmann, N. C. Kr？mer, A. Lam-chi, and S. Kopp, “Media equation revisited: do users show polite reactions towards an embodied agent?” in Proceeding of 9th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA '09), Z. Ruttkay, et al., Ed., LNAI 5773, pp. 159–165, Springer, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2009.
[26]
D. M. Dehn and S. van Mulken, “The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2000.
[27]
G. Bente, N. C. Kr？mer, A. Petersen, and J. P. de Ruiter, “Computer animated movement and person perception: methodological advances in nonverbal behavior research,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 151–166, 2001.
[28]
S. Parise, S. B. Kiesler, L. Sproull, and K. Waters, “Cooperating with life-like interface agents,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 123–142, 1999.
[29]
L. Sproull, M. Subramani, S. Kiesler, J. H. Walker, and K. Waters, “When the interface is a face,” Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 97–124, 1996.
[30]
R. Rickenberg and B. Reeves, “The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '00), pp. 49–56, April 2000.
[31]
N. C. Kr？mer, G. Bente, and J. Piesk, “The ghost in the machine. The influence of Embodied Conversational Agents on user expectations and user behaviour in a TV/VCR application,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Mobile Computing, Assistance, Mobility, Applications (IMC '03), G. Bieber and T. Kirste, Eds., pp. 121–128, Rostock, Germany.
[32]
E. Aharoni and A. J. Fridlund, “Social reactions toward people vs. computers: how mere lables shape interactions,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 2175–2189, 2007.
[33]
C. Nass, K. Isbister, and E.-J. Lee, “Truth is beauty: researching embodied conversational agents,” in Embodied Conversational Agents, J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, and E. Churchill, Eds., pp. 374–401, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2000.
[34]
K. Nowak and F. Biocca, “The influence of agency and the virtual body on presence, social presence and copresence in a computer mediated interaction,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Presence Workshop, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 2001.
[35]
L. P. Morency, C. Sidner, and T. Darrell, “Towards context-based visual feedback Recognition for Embodied Agents,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on Conversational Informatics for Supporting Social Intelligence and Interaction, pp. 69–72, AISB, Hatfield, UK, 2005.
[36]
D. Watson, A. Tellegen, and L. A. Clark, “Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1063–1070, 1988.
[37]
J. Short, E. Williams, and B. Christie, The Social Psychology of Telecommunications, John Wiley & Sons, London, UK, 1976.
[38]
F. Biocca and C. Harms, “Defining and measuring social presence: contribution to the net-worked minds theory and measure,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Presence, F. R. Gouveia and F. Biocca, Eds., pp. 7–36, 2002.
[39]
F. Biocca, C. Harms, and J. K. Burgoon, “Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria,” Presence, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 456–480, 2003.
[40]
F. Biocca, C. Harms, and J. Gregg, “The networked minds measure of social presence: pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity,” in Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, May 2001.
[41]
L. Tickle-Degnen and R. Rosenthal, “The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates,” Psychological Inquiry, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 285–293, 1990.
[42]
T. R. Manning, E. T. Goetz, and R. L. Street, “Signal delay effects on rapport in telepsychiatry,” Cyberpsychology and Behavior, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 119–127, 2000.
[43]
P. Mayring, Einführung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken, Psychologie Verlags Union, Weinheim, Germany, 3rd edition, 1996.
[44]
D. Leiner, “ofb.msd-media.de,” 2009, http://ofb.msd-media.de/.
