Abstract
Traditionally, an optimal embodied conversational agent (ECA) has the same capabilities and appearance as an actual person. This chapter proposes a ‘user as assessor’ approach to evaluating ECAs that focuses on how ECAs manifest human capabilities independent of actual capabilities that an ECA may possess. Literatures on humans as producers of behavior and humans as interpreters of behavior are lever-aged to draw implications for how ECAs should behave to seem most realistic to their human assessors. To illustrate the approach, we answer the question, ”what will convince a user that an ECA is paying attention to him or her, whether the ECA truly is paying attention or not?” ‘Apparent attention’ is conceptualized in terms of two basic dimensions — selectivity and breadth — and their indicators and impacts. Using the proposed approach, the chapter provides guidelines for how agents, conversational agents, and ECAs can effectively exhibit attention.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrée, E., Klesen, M., Gebhard, P., Allen, S. and Rist, T. (1999). Integrating models of personality and emotions into lifelike characters, In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Affect in Interactions: Towards a New Generation of Interfaces, pp. 136–149, Siena, Italy.
Argyle, M. and Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J.B., Beall, A.C. and Loomis, J.M. (2001). Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(6): 583–C598.
Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C. and Loomis, J.M. (in press) Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Bavelas, J.B., Black A., Chovil, N., Lemery, C.R., and Mullett, J. (1988). Form and function in motor mimicry: Topographic evidence that the primary function is communicative, Human Communication Research, 14: 275–299.
Beaumont, J. G. (1983). Introduction to neuropsychology, Blackwell, Oxford.
Beniger, J. R. (1987). Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community, Communication Research, 14(3): 325–371.
Biernet, M. and Vescio, T. K. (1993). Categorization and stereotyping: Effects of group context on memory and social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psyhcology, 29: 166–202.
Bishop, D. V. M., Chan, J., Hartley, J. and Weir, F. (1998). When a nod is as good as a word: Form-function relationships between questions and their responses. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(3):415–432.
Borkenau, P., and Liebler, A. (1993). Convergence of Stranger Ratings of Personality and Intelligence With Self-Ratings, Partner Ratings, and Measured Intelligence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:546–653.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J. and Cleland, A. A. (2000) Syntactic coordination in dialogue, Cognition, 75: B13–B25.
Brave, S. (2003). Agents that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Brave, S. and Nass, C. (2002). Emotion in human-computer interaction. In Jacko, J. and Sears, A. editors, Handbook of human-computer interaction, pp. 251–271, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.
Brennan, S. E. and Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22: 1482–1493.
Carnegie, D. (1990). How to win friends and influence people, Pocket Books, New York.
Cassell, J. (2000). More than just another pretty face: Embodied conversational interface agents. Communications of the ACM, 43(4):70–78.
Cassell, J., Nakano, Y.I., Bickmore, T., Sidner, C.L., and Rich, C. (2001). Non-verbal cues for discourse structure. In Proc. of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pp. 106–115. Toulouse, France.
Cassell, J. and Stone, M. (1999). Living hand to mouth: Theories of speech and gesture in interactive systems. In Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium: Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems, pp. 34–42, Cape Cod, MA.
Chartrand, T.L. and Bargh, J.A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception behavior link and social interaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76:893–910.
Chopra-Khullar S. and Badler N. I. (1999). Where to look? Automating visual attending behaviors of virtual human characters. In Proceedings of ACM Autonomous Agents Conference, pp. 16–23, Seattle, WA.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Coen, M. (1998). Design principles for intelligent environments. In Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 547–554, Madison, Wisconsin.
Coker, D. A. and Burgoon, J. K. (1987). The nature of conversational involvement and nonverbal encoding patterns. Human Communication Research, 13(4):463–494.
Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Principles of cognitive psychology, Psychology Press, New York.
Friedman, B. (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. CSLI Press, Stanford, CA.
Giges, B. (1975). Using your head: Notes on nodding. Transactional Analysis Journal, 5(3):264–266.
Grayson, D. and Coventry, L. (1998). The effects of visual proxemic information in video mediated communication. SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(3):30–39.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., editors, Syntax and semantics, Volume 3: Speech acts. Academic Press, New York.
Grosz, B.J and Sidner, C.L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3):175–204.
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. and Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 2(21):203–225.
Haller, S. M., McRoy, S. W. and Ali, S. S. (1997). Towards a model for mixed initiative in dialogic discourse. In Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Models of Mixed Initiative Interaction, pp. 78–80. Stanford University, California.
Hoeks, B. and Levelt, W.J.M. (1994). Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: A quantitative system analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 25: 16–26.
Hochschild, A. R. (1985). The managed heart, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Höoöok, K., Persson, P., and Sjöolinder, M. (2000). Evaluating Users Experience of a Character Enhanced Information Space, Journal of AI Communications, 13(3):195–212.
Isbister, K. and Nass, C. (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters: Verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1):251–267.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, New York: Holt.
Jeffrey, P. and Mark, G. (1999). Navigating the Virtual Landscape: Coordinating the Shared Use of Space. In Munro, A., Höök, K., and Beynon, D., editors, Social Navigation of Information Space, pp. 112–131, Springer, London.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kant, I. (1781 [1929]). The critique of pure reason, Macmillan, London.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 32:1–25.
Kettebekov, S., Yeasin, M. and Sharma, R. (2002). Prosody based co-analysis for continuous recognition of coverbal gestures, In Proc. of the International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI’02), pp. 161–166, Pittsburgh, USA.
Krause, M. A. (1997). Comparative perspectives on pointing and joint attention in children and apes. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10(3):137–157.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place, Harper and Row, New York.
Lashkari, Y., Metral, M. and Maes, P. (1994). Collaborative Interface Agents. In Proc. of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 444–449, Menlo Park, CA.
Latorella, K.A. (1999). Investigating interruptions: Implications for flightdeck performance. NASA/TM-1999-209707, National Aviation and Space Administration, Washington.
Lester, J. C., Voerman, J. L., Towns S. G. and Callaway, C. B. (1997). Cosmo: A life-like animated pedagogical agent with deictic believability. In Working notes of the IJCAI’ 97 workshop on animated interface agents: Making them intelligent, pp. 61–69, Nagoya, Japan.
Leung, E. H. and Rheingold, H. L. (1981). Development of pointing as a social gesture. Developmental Psychology, 17(2):215–220.
Lieberman, H. (1995). Letizia: An agent that assists in web browsing. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 457–480, Montreal, Canada.
Maglio, P., Barrett, R., Campbell, C. S. and Selker T. (2000). SUITOR: An attentive information system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 169–176, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Maglio, P. P. and Campbell, C. S. (2003). Attentive agents. Communications of the ACM, 46(3):47–51.
Mann, W. C. and Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization, Technical Report RS-87-190, International Computer Science Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Metral, M. (1993). Design of a generic learning interface agent. Bachelor of Science thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Mirsky, A. F. (1989). The neuropsychology of attention: Elements of a complex behavior. In Perenman, E., editor, Integrating theory and practice in clinical neuropsychology, pp. 75–91, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Moon, Y. and Nass, C. (1996). How “real” are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication Research, 23(6):651–674.
Moon, Y. (1998). Impression management in computer-based interviews: The effects of input modality, output modality, and distance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62:610–622.
Moore, C. and D’Entremont, B. (2001). Developmental changes in pointing as a function of attentional focus. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2(2):109–129.
Murray, J. (1991). Anatomy of a new medium: Literary and pedogogic uses of advanced linguistic computer structures. Computers and the Humanities, 25(1):1–14.
Nass, C. and Gong, L. (2000). Social aspects of speech interfaces from an evolutionary perspective: Experimental research and design implications. Communications of the ACM, 43(9):36–43.
Nass, C. and Lee, K. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3):171–181.
Nass, C. and Mason, L. (1990). On the study of technology and task: A variable-based approach. In Fulk, J. and C. Steinfeld, C., editors, Organizations and communication technology, pp. 46–67, Sage, Newbury Park.
Nass, C. and Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1):81–103.
Nass, C., Isbister, K. and Lee, E. (2000). Truth is beauty: Researching embodied conversation agents. In Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., and Churchill, E., editors, Embodied conversational agents, pp. 374–402, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nass, C., Moon, Y. and Green, N. (1997). Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10):864–876.
Norman., D. A. (1997). How might people interact with agents. pp. 49–55. In Bradshaw, J. M., editor, Software agents, AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Oh, A., Fox, H., Kleek, M. V., Adler, A., Gajos, K., Morency, L. and Darrell, T. (2002). Evaluating look-to-talk: A gaze-aware interface in a collaborative environment. In Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pp. 650–651. Minneapolis, MN.
Persson, P., Laaksolahti, J., and Löonnqvist, P. (2000). Anthropomorphism: A multi-layered phenomenon. AAAI Fall Symposium 2000, Technical Report FS-00-04, pp. 131–135, North Falmouth, Massachusetts.
Poesio, M. (1992). Conversational events and discourse state change: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’92), pp. 369–380, Cambridge, MA.
Reed, C. A. (2002). Saliency and the attentional state in natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 440–444, Lyon, France.
Reeves, B. and Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places, Cambridge University Press/CSLI, New York.
Rich, C. and Sidner, C. (1998). COLLAGEN: A collaboration manager for software interface agents. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, 8:315–350.
Rickel, J., Lesh, N. B., Rich, C., Sidner, C. L. and Gertner, A. (2002). Collaborative discourse theory as a foundation for tutorial dialogue. In Proc. of the Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 542–551, Biarritz, France and San Sebastian, Spain.
Rickel, J. and Johnson, W. L. (1999). Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition, and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(4–5):343–382.
Rizzo P., Veloso M. V., Miceli M. and Cesta A. (1997). Personality-driven social behaviors in believable agents. In Proc. of the AAAI 1997 Fall Symposium on “Socially Intelligent Agents”, AAAI Press Technical Report FS-97-02, pp. 109–114.
Rosenkrantz, P. S., Vogel, S. R., Bee, H., Broverman, I. K. and Broverman, D. M. (1968). Sex role stereotypes and self concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32:287–295.
Schmidt, C. L. (1999). Adult understanding of spontaneous attention-directing events: What does gesture contribute? Ecological Psychology, 11(2):139–174.
Schneiderman, B. (1997). Designing the user interface: Strategies for e ective human-computer interaction, Addison Wesley, New York.
Shankar, T. R., van Kleek, M., Vicente, A. and Smith, B. K. (2000). Fugue: A computer mediated conversational system that supports turn negotiation. In Proc. of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Persistent Conversation mini-track, pp. 3035–3036, Maui, Hawaii.
Sherman, E. (1973). Listening comprehension as a function of proxemic distance and eye-contact. Graduate Research in Education and Related Disciplines, 7(1):5–34.
Sheth, B. and Maes, P. (1993). Evolving agents for personalized information filtering. In Proc. of the Ninth IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence and its Applications, pp. 1–7. Orlando, FL.
Spence, C., Kettenmann, B., Kobal, G., McGlone, F.P. (2001). Shared attentional resources for processing visual and chemosensory information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A(3):775–783.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.) (1982). Social identity and intergroup behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Men and women in conversation, Ballantine, New York.
Traum, D. R. and Rickel, J. (2002). Embodied agents for multi-party dialogue in immersive virtual worlds. In Proc. of the First International Joint Conferenceon Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent System, pp. 766–773, Bologna, Italy.
Vertegaal, R. and Ding, Y. (2003). Explaining effects of eye gaze on mediated group conversations: Amount or synchronization? In Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 41–48, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Vertegaal, R., Slagter, R., Van der Veer, G. C. and Nijholt, A. (2001). Eye gaze patterns in conversations: There is more to conversational agents than meets the eyes. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 301–308, Seattle, Washington.
Vertegaal, R., Veer, G. and Vons, H. (2002). Effects of gaze on multiparty mediated communication.In Proceedings of Graphics Interface, pp. 95–102, Montreal, Canada.
Vilhjalmsson, H. and Cassell, J. (1998). BodyChat: Autonomous communicative behaviors in avatars, In Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 269–276, Minneapolis.
Walker, M. A. (1996). Limited attention and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22(2):255–264.
Weizenbaum, J. (1966). Eliza — a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9:23–28.
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In Parasuraman, R. and Davies, D. R., editors, Varieties of attention, Academic Press, New York.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nass, C., Robles, E., Wang, Q. (2004). ‘User as Assessor’ Approach to Embodied Conversational Agents. In: Ruttkay, Z., Pelachaud, C. (eds) From Brows to Trust. Human-Computer Interaction Series, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2730-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2730-3_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2729-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2730-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)