skip to main content
10.1145/1891903.1891963acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesicmi-mlmiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Behavior and preference in minimal personality: a study on embodied conversational agents

Published:08 November 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Endowing embodied conversational agent with personality affords more natural modalities for their interaction with human interlocutors. To bridge the personality gap between users and agents, we designed minimal two personalities for corresponding agents i.e. an introverted and an extroverted agent. Each features a combination of different verbal and non-verbal behaviors. In this paper, we present an examination of the effects of the speaking and behavior styles of the two agents and explore the resulting design factors pertinent for spoken dialogue systems. The results indicate that users prefer the extroverted agent to the introverted one. The personality traits of the agents influence the users' preferences, dialogues, and behavior. Statistically, it is highly significant that users are more talkative with the extroverted agent. We also investigate the spontaneous speech disfluency of the dialogues and demonstrate that the extroverted behavior model reduce the user's speech disfluency. Furthermore, users having different mental models behave differently with the agents. The results and findings show that the minimal personalities of agents maximally influence the interlocutors' behaviors.

References

  1. Cassell, J. Embodied Conversational Agents Representation and Intelligence in User Interfaces. AAAI American Association of Artificial, USA. 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjalmsson, H., Yan, H., 2000. Conversationas a System Framework: Designing Embodied Conversational Agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents. pages 29--63. Boston MIT Press. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. Personality and speech production: a pilot study of second language learners. Personality and Individual Difference, 28, 355--365. 2000Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ferrer, L., Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A. A prosody-based approach to end-of-utterance detection that does not require speech recognition. In International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Furnham, A. Language and personality. In H. Giles & W. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Wiley, Chichester. 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim, H., Sonya, S., Kwak, Kim, M. Personality Design of Sociable Robots by Control of Gesture Design Factors. In proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. August 1--3, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, R. E., Computers are Social Actors. Proceddings to ACM conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), Boston, M.A. 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Nago, K., Takeuchi, A. Speech Dialogue with Facial Displays: Multimodal Human-Computer Conversation. In Association for Computational Linguistics, p. 102--109. 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Reeves, B. and Nass, C. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Rickel, J. and Johnson, W., L. Task-Oriented Dialogs with Animated Agents in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Embodied Conversational Characters, p. 39--46. 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Rudolf, F. How to Test Readability. New York: Harper. 1951.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Smeddinck, J., Wajada, K. Naveed A., Touma, L., Chen, Y., Muhammad, H., Muhammad W., Porzel, R. QuickWoz: a multi-purpose wizard-of-oz framework for experiments with embodied conversational agents, Intelligent User Interface Conference, China. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Yuan, J., Liberman, M., Cieri, C. Towards an Integrated Understanding of Speaking Rate in Conversation. In inter-speach, 9th intercational conference on spoken language processing, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Behavior and preference in minimal personality: a study on embodied conversational agents

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICMI-MLMI '10: International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces and the Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction
      November 2010
      311 pages
      ISBN:9781450304146
      DOI:10.1145/1891903

      Copyright © 2010 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 November 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster

      Acceptance Rates

      ICMI-MLMI '10 Paper Acceptance Rate41of100submissions,41%Overall Acceptance Rate453of1,080submissions,42%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader