Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

De-instrumentalizing HCI: Social Psychology, Rapport Formation, and Interactions with Artificial Social Agents

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Directions in Third Wave Human-Computer Interaction: Volume 1 - Technologies

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

Abstract

Decisions in designing artificial social interactants to reproduce culturally-specific forms of human sociality evince a range of conceptions of the norms and cognitive processes involved in the human social interactions themselves. Regarding the use of machine learning (ML) in such systems, decisions whether or not to use this approach implicitly presents questions on the nature of the interpersonal adaptation that takes place and indicate a range of conceptions of the values which structure these interactions. In the design of virtual performers of musical free improvisation, several designers assume that the experience of equal partnership between improvisers can only be afforded through deployment of ML in such systems. By contrast, tests of agents not based in ML reveal that human beings experience illusions of “adaptation” in interactions with systems which lack any adaptive capacity. Such results suggest that HCI research with artificial social interactants may be used to raise new questions about the nature of human interaction and interpersonal adaptation in the formation of relationships over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Again, in the case of a virtual free improviser, the designer does retain control over the system’s behavior. But unlike the control exerted over a system built to function as an “instrument” (Rowe 1992), a “player” system cannot be directly controlled on a moment to moment basis.

  2. 2.

    While peer criticism is not seen in this way by participants of other egalitarian social projects (Chaudron 1984; Snyder and Fessler 2014), improvisers view criticism as a kind of speech act that instantly nullifies equality by placing the speaker in a position of authority with regard to the actions of the addressee.

  3. 3.

    Similarity is judged by an analytical comparison of incoming and stores phrases on the basis of their loudness, pitch content, spectral centroid (or “brightness”), noisiness (or ratio of tone to noise) as well as the mean and range for these values in a given phrase.

  4. 4.

    As Eitan Wilf notes (2013b), this is a very specific notion of the term “style” which essentially predetermines what can and cannot even count as style.

  5. 5.

    These criteria were (1) the degree to which the system inspired you to respond to its playing, (2) satisfaction with unexpected or surprising responses from the system, (3) the overall sense that the interaction was meaningful, and (4) whether the system’s responses seemed relevant or random.

  6. 6.

    The main question for this experiment focused on the issue of whether or not the active listening of another improviser increases or decreases an improviser’s level of aesthetic or social-interactional satisfaction of the experience of playing music. In order to investigate this question, in a random selection of the 10 takes, the system was set to listen to a prerecorded track (and therefore, not listen to the sonic events of the current take) whereas in the remainder of takes the system listened to the combination of itself and the human performer, this being the way the system was originally designed to receive input in a performance setting. (For further discussion, see Banerji 2012.)

  7. 7.

    To be clear, the quantitative data from the experiment does not necessarily suggest a clear sense of evolution in the player’s experience across the set of 10 takes. However, the quantitatively-graded criteria do not directly correspond with positive or negative sentiments about the system’s interactivity as an experience. With the exception of one criterion (“meaningfulness”), the criteria evaluated refer to the player’s observations about the interaction overall and do not inherently convey judgments about the aesthetic value of the experience.

  8. 8.

    These were mainly minor tweaks in order to enable the system to start and stop at the push of a single button. Such changes had no effect on how the system would begin to play, behave during the improvisation itself, or how it would “end” pieces.

  9. 9.

    When improvisers meet in private, it is rare for them to “rehearse” materials. Instead, it is far more common to play for a duration similar to that of an actual concert (ranging from 20 minutes to an hour) without break. Afterwards, some discussion may take place about the music. However, given the fact that recalling specific details of such a long duration of improvisation, in which temporal coordination (i.e., pulse) is often absent and each player is engaged in significantly independent lines of action, it is doubtful that one will have a clear recollection of specific events. Therefore, it is unlikely as well that one will have the epistemological certainty required to make a comment about what has happened and how it should have been done differently (Corbett 1994).

References

  • Amershi S, Cakmak M, Knox WB, Kulesza T (2014) Power to the people: the role of humans in interactive machine learning. AI Mag 35(4):105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen K, Brooks R (2003) Special guest: Rodney brooks. Studio 360: WNYC. National Public Radio, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Assayag G, Dubnov S (2004) Using factor oracles for machine improvisation. Soft Comput 8(9):604–610

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Assayag G, Bloch G, Chemillier M, Cont A, Dubnov S (2006) Omax brothers: a dynamic topology of agents for improvization learning. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on audio and music computing multimedia, pp 125–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Assayag G, Bloch G, Cont A, Dubnov S (2010) Interaction with machine improvisation. In: Argamon S, Burns K, Dubnov S (eds) The structure of style. Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp 219–245

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Backstrom MJ (2013). The field of cultural production and the limits of freedom in improvisation. Crit Stud Improv/Études critiques en improvisation 9(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey D (1980/1993) Improvisation: its nature and practice in music. Da Capo Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerji R (2010) Maxine Banerji: the mutually beneficial practices of youth development and interactive systems development. eContact! J Can Electroacoust Commun 12(3). https://econtact.ca/12_3/banerji_maxine.html

  • Banerji R (2012) Maxine’s Turing test: a player-program as co-ethnographer of socio-aesthetic interaction in improvised music. In: Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference (AIIDE’12)

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerji R (2016) Balancing defiance and cooperation: the design and human critique of a virtual free improviser. In: Proceedings of the international computer music conference, pp 49–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerji R, Maxine, the Astromusicologist (2014) Palmer square. pfMentum, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2011) Pleasure is your birthright: digitally enabled designer sex toys as a case of third-wave HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 257–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2016) Humanistic HCI. Interactions 23(2):20–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumer EP, Silberman M (2011) When the implication is not to design (technology). In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 2271–2274

    Google Scholar 

  • Beins B (2011) Entwurf und Ereignis (Scheme and Event). In: Beins B, Kesten C, Nauck G, Neumann A (eds) echtzeitmusik berlin: selbstbestimmung einer szene (self-defining a scene). Wolke Verlag, Hofheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernieri F, Gillis JS (1995) The judgment of rapport: a cross-cultural comparison between Americans and Greeks. J Nonverbal Behav 19(2):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernieri FJ, Gillis JS, Davis JM, Grahe JE (1996) Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: a lens model analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 71(1):110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell T, Bentley P (2002) Improvised music with swarms. In: Proceedings of the World conference on computational intelligence, pp 1462–1467

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell T, Young M (2004) Self-organised music. Organised Sound 9(2):123–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles. ACM, New York, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm C (1993) Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy. Curr Anthropol 34(3):227–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehner K, DePaula R, Dourish P, Sengers P (2007) How emotion is made and measured. Int J Hum Comput Stud 65(4):275–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgo D (2002) Synergy and Surrealestate: the orderly disorder of free improvisation. Pac Rev Ethnomusicol 10:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein RF (1989) Exposure and affect: overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychol Bull 106(2):265–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bown O (2011) Experiments in modular design for the creative composition of live algorithms. Comput Music J 35(3):73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bown O (2015) Player responses to a live algorithm: conceptualising computational creativity without recourse to human comparisons? In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computational creativity

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinner B (1995) Knowing music, making music: Javanese gamelan and the theory of musical competence and interaction. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell J (2016) How the machine ‘thinks’: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc 3(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canonne C (2013) Focal points in collective free improvisation. Perspect New Music 51(1):40–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canonne C, Garnier N (2015) Individual decisions and perceived form in collective free improvisation. J New Music Res 44(2):145–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappella JN (1990) On defining conversational coordination and rapport. Psychol Inq 1(4):303–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey B (2012) Designing for cumulative interactivity: the _derivations system. In: Proceedings of the international conference on new interfaces for musical expression

    Google Scholar 

  • Carles P, Comolli J-L (2015 [1971]) Free jazz/Black power. University Press of Mississippi, Mississippi

    Google Scholar 

  • Casal DP (2008) Time after time: short-circuiting the emotional distance between algorithm and human improvisors. In: Proceedings of the international computer music conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Casal DP, Morelli D (2007). Remembering the future: applications of genetic co-evolution in music improvisation. In: Proceedings of the European conference on artificial life

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell J, Gill AJ, Tepper PA (2007) Coordination in conversation and rapport. In: Proceedings of the workshop on embodied language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 41–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadabe J (1997) Interaction. In: Electric sound: the past and promise of electronic music. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 286–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudron C (1984) The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC J 15(2):1–14

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Collins N (2008) Reinforcement learning for live musical agents. In: Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC), Belfast

    Google Scholar 

  • Cont A, Dubnov S, Assayag G (2006) A framework for anticipatory machine improvisation and style imitation. In: Proceedings of the conference on Anticipatory Behavior in Adaptive Learning Systems (ABiALS)

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett J (1994) Evan Parker: saxophone botany. In: Extended play: sounding off from John Cage to Dr. Funkenstein. Duke University Press, Duke, pp 201–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett J (2016) A Listener’s guide to free improvisation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crabtree A, Rodden T, Tolmie P, Button G (2009) Ethnography considered harmful. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 879–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Dourish P (2006) Implications for design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 541–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards PN (1997) The closed world: computers and the politics of discourse in Cold War America. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiben AE, Smith JE (2003) Introduction to evolutionary computing. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eklund R (2002) Ingressive speech as an indication that humans are talking to humans (and not to machines). In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fails JA, Olsen DR Jr (2003) Interactive machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, New York, pp 39–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiebrink R, Cook PR, Trueman D (2011) Human model evaluation in interactive supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 147–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischlin D, Heble A, Lipsitz G (2013) Take two: sounds of surprise; rights, risks and responsibilities in improvised music. In: The fierce urgency of now: improvisation, rights, and the ethics of co-creation. Duke University Press, Duke, pp 203–219

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe D (2002) Studying those who study us: an anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman B, Nissenbaum H (1996) Bias in computer systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst (TOIS) 14(3):330–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchsberger V, Moser C, Tscheligi M (2012) Values in action (ViA): combining usability, user experience and user acceptance. In: CHI’12 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1793–1798

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles H, Coupland N, Coupland I (eds) (1991) Contexts of accommodation: developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E (1955) On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry Interpersonal Biol Process 18(3):213–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E (1967) Interaction ritual: essays in face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grahe JE, Bernieri FJ (1999) The importance of nonverbal cues in judging rapport. J Nonverbal Behav 23(4):253–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratch J et al (2006) Virtual Rapport. In: Gratch J, Young M, Aylett R, Ballin D, Olivier P (eds) Intelligent Virtual Agents. IVA. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 14–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gratch J, Wang N, Gerten, J., Fast, E., & Duffy, R. (2007). Creating rapport with virtual agents. In: Pelachaud C, Martin J-C, André E, Chollet G, Karpouzis K, Pelé D (eds) International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison S, Tatar D, Sengers P (2007) The three paradigms of HCI. alt. chi

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich S (2001) After culture: reflections on the apparition of anthropology in artificial life, a science of simulation. Cult Anthropol 16(4):612–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter DR (1995) The ineradicable Eliza effect and its dangers. In: Hofstadter DR (ed) Fluid concepts and creative analogies: computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. Basic books, New York, pp 155–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu W (2005) Using timbre in a computer-based improvisation system. In: Proceedings of the international computer music conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu W (2010) Strategies for managing timbre and interaction in automatic improvisation systems. Leonardo Music J 20:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu W, Sosnick M (2009) Evaluating interactive music systems: an HCI approach. In: Proceedings of the international conference on New Interfaces in Musical Expression (NIME)

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang L, Morency L-P, Gratch J (2011) Virtual rapport 2.0. In: Vilhjálmsson HH, Kopp S, Marsella S, Thórisson KR (eds) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 68–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Huron DB (2006) Sweet anticipation: music and the psychology of expectation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl E (1913/2012) Ideas: general introduction to pure phenomenology (WRB Gibson, Trans.). Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendon A (1990) Conducting interaction: patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on neural networks, pp 1942–1948

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiousis S (2002) Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media Soc 4(3):355–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144480200400303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofsky F (1970) Black nationalism and the revolution in music. Pathfinder Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakin JL, Chartrand TL (2003) Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychol Sci 14(4):334–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange BR (2011) Teaching the ethics of free improvisation. Crit Stud Improvis/Études critiques en improvisation 7(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Langton CG (1997) Artificial life: an overview. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GE (1993). Voyager (G Lewis, R Mitchell, V. I. V. I. System, Trans.). Avant, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GE (1999) Interacting with latter-day musical automata. Contemp Music Rev 18(3):99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GE (2000) Too many notes: computers, complexity and culture inVoyager. Leonardo Music J 10:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GE (2007) Mobilitas animi: improvising technologies, intending chance. Parallax 13(4):108–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linson A (2014) Investigating the cognitive foundations of collaborative musical free improvisation: experimental case studies using a novel application of the subsumption architecture. Doctoral thesis, The Open University

    Google Scholar 

  • Linson A, Dobbyn C, Lewis GE, Laney R (2015) A Subsumption agent for collaborative free improvisation. Comput Music J 39(4):96–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maatman R, Gratch J, Marsella S (2005) Natural behavior of a listening agent. In: Intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 25–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Monson I (1996) Saying something: jazz improvisation and interaction. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland RL, Zajonc RB (1982) Exposure effects in person perception: familiarity, similarity, and attraction. J Exp Soc Psychol 18(5):395–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrissey K, Kirakowski J (2013) ‘Realness’ in Chatbots: establishing quantifiable criteria. In: Kurosu M (ed) Proceedings of the 15th international conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 87–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum H (2001) How computer systems embody values. Computer 34(3):120–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachet F (2003) The continuator: musical interaction with style. J New Music Res 32(3):333–341. https://doi.org/10.1076/jnmr.32.3.333.16861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pras A, Schober MF, Spiro N (2017) What about their performance do free jazz improvisers agree upon? A case study [Original Research]. Front Psychol 8(966). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00966

  • Reis HT, Maniaci MR, Caprariello PA, Eastwick PW, Finkel EJ (2011) Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 101(3):557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez AW (2016) Harmolodic pedagogy and the challenge of omni-musicality. Jazz Perspect 9(2):173–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe R (1992) Interactive music systems: machine listening and composing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaver N (2012) Algorithmic recommendations and synaptic functions. Limn 1(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengers P, Kaye J, Boehner K, Fairbank J, Gay G, Medynskiy Y et al (2004) Culturally embedded computing. IEEE Pervasive Comput 3(1):14–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serenko A, Bontis N (2011) What’s familiar is excellent: the impact of exposure effect on perceived journal quality. J Informet 5(1):219–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfert R, Roberge J (2016) Algorithmic cultures: essays on meaning, performance and new technologies. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder JK, Fessler DM (2014) Narcotics anonymous: anonymity, admiration, and prestige in an egalitarian community. Ethos 42(4):440–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spellman AB (1966) Four lives in the bebop business. Pantheon Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanyek J (1999) Articulating intercultural free improvisation: Evan Parker’s synergetics project. Resonance 7(2):44–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbeck P (2010) “Patience, sincerity, and consistency”: Fred Anderson’s musical and social practices. Crit Stud Improvis/Études critiques en improvisation 6(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L (2006) Human-machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sunardi C (2011) Negotiating authority and articulating gender: performer interaction in Malang, East Java. Ethnomusicology 55(1):32–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inq 1(4):285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterman E (2008) Naked intimacy: eroticism, improvisation, and gender. Crit Stud Improvis/Études critiques en improvisation 4(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizenbaum J (1976) Computer power and human reason. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilf E (2013a) Sociable robots, jazz music, and divination: contingency as a cultural resource for negotiating problems of intentionality. Am Ethnol 40(4):605–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilf E (2013b) Toward an anthropology of computer-mediated, algorithmic forms of sociality. Curr Anthropol 54(6):716–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GB, MacDonald RA (2015) Musical choices during group free improvisation: a qualitative psychological investigation. Psychol Music:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodburn J (1982) Egalitarian societies. Man 17(3):431–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yee-King MJ (2007) An automated music improviser using a genetic algorithm driven synthesis engine. In: Giacobini M (ed) Applications of evolutionary computing (EvoWorkshops 2007) proceedings. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 567–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Young M (2008) NN music: improvising with a ‘living’ computer. In: Kronland-Martinet R, Ystad S, Jensen K (eds) Computer music modeling and retrieval: sense of sounds. Springer, Berlin, pp 337–350

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Young M (2010) Identity and intimacy in human-computer improvisation. Leonardo Music J 20(online supplement)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc RB (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9(2, part 2):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this chapter benefitted from the insightful critiques of Nick Seaver, Zachary Chase Lipton, as well as editors and reviewers of this volume. Financial support for this project came from the Fulbright U.S. Young Journalist’s Fellowship in Germany, the Berlin Program for Advanced German and European Studies, and the Berkeley-Mellon Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Music, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Ritwik Banerji

Authors
  1. Ritwik Banerji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ritwik Banerji .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Interactive Arts & Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada

    Michael Filimowicz

  2. School of Communications, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

    Veronika Tzankova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Banerji, R. (2018). De-instrumentalizing HCI: Social Psychology, Rapport Formation, and Interactions with Artificial Social Agents. In: Filimowicz, M., Tzankova, V. (eds) New Directions in Third Wave Human-Computer Interaction: Volume 1 - Technologies. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73356-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73356-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73355-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73356-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation