skip to main content
10.1145/2556288.2557180acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Improving social presence in human-agent interaction

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Humans have a tendency to consider media devices as social beings. Social agents and artificial opponents can be examined as one instance of this effect. With today's technology it is already possible to create artificial agents that are perceived as socially present. In this paper, we start by identifying the factors that influence perceptions of social presence in human-agent interactions. By taking these factors into account and by following previously defined guidelines for building socially present artificial opponents, a case study was created in which a social robot plays the Risk board game against three human players. An experiment was performed to ascertain whether the agent created in this case study is perceived as socially present. The experiment suggested that by following the guidelines for creating socially present artificial board game opponents, the perceived social presence of users towards the artificial agent improves.

References

  1. Adalgeirsson, S., and Breazeal, C. Mebot: a robotic platform for socially embodied presence. In Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (2010), 15--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Biocca, F., Burgoon, J., Harms, C., and Stoner, M. Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Biocca, F., Harms, C., and Burgoon, J. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 12, 5 (2003), 456--480. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Biocca, F., Harms, C., and Gregg, J. The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. In 4th annual International Workshop on Presence (2001), 9--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Deshmukh, A., Castellano, G., Kappas, A., Barendregt, W., Nabais, F., Paiva, A., Ribeiro, T., Leite, I., and Aylett, R. Towards empathic artificial tutors. In Proc. of the 8th ACM/IEEE int. conference on Human-robot interaction (2013), 113--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Eriksson, D., Peitz, J., and Björk, S. Socially adaptable games. In Proceedings of DiGRA Conference: Changing Views-Worlds in Play (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Garau, M., Widenfeld, H., Antley, A., Friedman, D., Brogni, A., and Slater, M. Temporal and spatial variations in presence: A qualitative analysis. In Proc. of Int. Workshop on Presence (2004), 232--239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gockley, R., Bruce, A., Forlizzi, J., Michalowski, M., Mundell, A., Rosenthal, S., Sellner, B., Simmons, R., Snipes, K., Schultz, A., et al. Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE (2005), 1338--1343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Harms, C., and Biocca, F. Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds social presence measure. Exploring the sense of presence (2004), 246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Heerink, M., Ben, K., Evers, V., and Wielinga, B. The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents 2, 2 (2008), 33--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Heeter, C. Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments 1, 2 (1992), 262--271. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1958.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Johansson, S. On using multi-agent systems in playing board games. In Proceedings of the 5th International joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, ACM (2006), 569--576. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., and Martens, J.-B. User experience over time: an initial framework. ACM, 2009, 729--738. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kedzierski, J., Muszynski, R., Zoll, C., Oleksy, A., and Frontkiewicz, M. Emys-emotive head of a social robot. IJ Social Robotics 5, 2 (2013), 237--249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Koda, T., and Maes, P. Agents with faces: The effect of personification. In Robot and Human Communication, IEEE (1996), 189--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Leite, I., Hajishirzi, H., Andrist, S., and Lehman, J. Managing chaos: models of turn-taking in character-multichild interactions. In Proc. of the 15th ACM on Int. conference on multimodal interaction (2013), 43--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Leite, I., Martinho, C., Pereira, A., and Paiva, A. As time goes by: Long-term evaluation of social presence in robotic companions. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE (2009), 669--674.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Leite, I., Mascarenhas, S., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., Prada, R., and Paiva, A. "why can't we be friends?" an empathic game companion for long-term interaction. In Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer (2010), 315--321. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lombard, M., and Ditton, T. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3, 2 (1997), 0--0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Martinho, C., and Paiva, A. Using anticipation to create believable behavior. In Proceedings of the national conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 21, Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999 (2006), 175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mori, M. The uncanny valley. Energy 7, 4 (1970), 33--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Pereira, A., Martinho, C., Leite, I., and Paiva, A. icat, the chess player: the influence of embodiment in the enjoyment of a game. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Vol 3 (2008), 1253--1256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Pereira, A., Prada, R., and Paiva, A. Towards the next generation of board game opponents. In FDG'11: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (June 2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Pereira, A., Prada, R., and Paiva, A. Socially present board game opponents. In Advances in Computer Entertainment, vol. 7624 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, 101--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Reeves, B. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information; Cambridge, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ribeiro, T., and Paiva, A. The illusion of robotic life: principles and practices of animation for robots. In Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (2012), 383--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Rogers, Y., and Lindley, S. Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best? Interacting with Computers 16, 6 (2004), 1133--1152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Ryall, K., Morris, M., Everitt, K., Forlines, C., and Shen, C. Experiences with and observations of directtouch tabletops. In Proceedings of IEEE TableTop the International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems (2006), 89--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. The social psychology of telecommunications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Slater, M. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 1535 (2009), 3549.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Sodian, B., and Kristen, S. Theory of mind. Towards a theory of thinking (2010), 189--201.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Toney, A., and Thomas, B. Considering reach in tangible and table top design. In Int. Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Yankelovich, N., Levow, G., and Marx, M. Designing speechacts: Issues in speech user interfaces. In Proc. of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (1995), 369--376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Yoshikawa, Y., Shinozawa, K., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N., and Miyamoto, T. Responsive robot gaze to interaction partner. In Robotics: Science and systems (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Improving social presence in human-agent interaction

            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
              CHI '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
              April 2014
              4206 pages
              ISBN:9781450324731
              DOI:10.1145/2556288

              Copyright © 2014 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: 26 April 2014

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              CHI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate465of2,043submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader