skip to main content
10.1145/2901790.2901842acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What Can You Do?: Studying Social-Agent Orientation and Agent Proactive Interactions with an Agent for Employees

Published:04 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Personal agent software is now in daily use in personal devices and in some organizational settings. While many advocate an agent sociality design paradigm that incorporates human-like features and social dialogues, it is unclear whether this is a good match for professionals who seek productivity instead of leisurely use. We conducted a 17-day field study of a prototype of a personal AI agent that helps employees find work-related information. Using log data, surveys, and interviews, we found individual differences in the preference for humanized social interactions (social-agent orientation), which led to different user needs and requirements for agent design. We also explored the effect of agent proactive interactions and found that they carried the risk of interruption, especially for users who were generally averse to interruptions at work. Further, we found that user differences in social-agent orientation and aversion to agent proactive interactions can be inferred from behavioral signals. Our results inform research into social agent design, proactive agent interaction, and personalization of AI agents.

References

  1. Apple's Siri wrong 38 percent of the time in test. http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-siri-wrong-38percent-of-the-time-in-test/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in human behavior 22, 4(2006), 685--708.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, P., Peintner, B., Conley, K., Gervasio, M., Uribe, T., and Yorke-Smith, N. Deploying a personalized time management agent. In Proc. AAMAS 2006, ACM Press (2006), 1564--1571). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bickmore, T., and Cassell, J. Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In Proc. CHI 2001, ACM Press (2001), 396--403. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bickmore, T., Mauer, D., Crespo, F., and Brown, T. Persuasion, task interruption and health regimen adherence. In Proc. Persuasive Technology, 1--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bickmore, T. W., Pfeifer, L. M., and Jack, B. W. Taking the time to care: empowering low health literacy hospital patients with virtual nurse agents. In Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 1265--1274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bickmore, T. W., and Picard, R. W. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 12, 2 (2005), 293--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Brave, S., Nass, C., and Hutchinson, K. Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62, 2 (2005), 161--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Cassell, Justine. Embodied conversational agents. MIT press, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Cassell, J., & Bickmore, T. (2003). Negotiated collusion: Modeling social language and its relationship effects in intelligent agents. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 13(1--2), 89--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Cassell, J., and Thorisson, K. R. The power of a nod and a glance: Envelope vs. emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 13, 4--5(1999), 519--538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Chi, E. H. Blurring of the Boundary Between Interactive Search and Recommendation. In Proc. IUI 2015, ACM Press (2015), 2--2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. E. Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 13(1991), 127--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Cramer, H., Evers, V., van Slooten, T., Ghijsen, M., & Wielinga, B. Trying too hard: effects of mobile agents'(Inappropriate) social expressiveness on trust, affect and compliance. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press (2010), 1471--1474. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Proc. CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004), 175--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Dautenhahn, K. Robots we like to live with?!-a developmental perspective on a personalized, life-long robot companion. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication 2004. 17--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dryer, D. C. Getting personal with computers: how to design personalities for agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 13, 3 (1999), 273--295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Faulring, A., Myers, B., Mohnkern, K., Schmerl, B., Steinfeld, A., Zimmerman, J. and Siewiorek, D. Agentassisted task management that reduces email overload. In Proc. IUI 2010, ACM Press (2010),61--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., and Hagman, J. Hardware companions': What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship. In Proc. 2003, ACM Press (2003), 273--280). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Gil, Y., and Ratnakar, V. Towards intelligent assistance for to-do lists. In Proc. IUI 2008, ACM Press (2008), 329--332. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Gockley, R., Bruce, A., Forlizzi, J., Michalowski, M., Mundell, A., Rosenthal, S. andWang, J. Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In Intelligent Robots and Systems 2005, 1338--1343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., and Powers, A. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve humanrobot cooperation. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication 2003, 55--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ho, J., and Intille, S. S. Using context-aware computing to reduce the perceived burden of interruptions from mobile devices. In Proc. CHI 2005. ACM Press (2005), 909--918. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & PALS Group. Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development 54,3 (2006), 223--243.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kopp, S., Gesellensetter, L., Krämer, N. C., and Wachsmuth, I. A conversational agent as museum guide-design and evaluation of a real-world application. In Intelligent Virtual Agents, (2005), 329343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Kshirsagar, S. A multilayer personality model. In Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on Smart graphics 2002, 107--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Kuno, Y., Sadazuka, K., Kawashima, M., Yamazaki, K., Yamazaki, A., and Kuzuoka, H. Museum guide robot based on sociological interaction analysis. In Pro. CHI 2007, ACM Press (2007), 1191--1194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Lee, M. K., Kiesler, S., and Forlizzi, J. Receptionist or information kiosk: how do people talk with a robot?. In Proc. CSCW 2010, ACM Press (2010), 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Lee, M. K., Kiesler, S., Forlizzi, J., and Rybski, P. Ripple effects of an embedded social agent: a field study of a social robot in the workplace. In Proc CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 695--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Lee, N., Shin, H., & Sundar, S. S. Utilitarian vs. hedonic robots: role of parasocial tendency and anthropomorphism in shaping user attitudes. In Proc HRI 2011, ACM Press (2011), 183--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Maes, P. Agents that reduce work and information overload.Communications of the ACM 37,7(1994), 3040. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Morris, M. R., & Horvitz, E. SearchTogether: an interface for collaborative web search. In Proc. UIST 2007, ACM Press (2007), 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Nass, C., and Lee, K. M. Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experimental test of similarity-attraction. In Proc CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012),329--336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E. R. Computers are social actors. In Proc. CHI 1994. ACM Press (1994), 72--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Norman, D. A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Novielli, N., de Rosis, F., & Mazzotta, I. (2010). User attitude towards an embodied conversational agent: Effects of the interaction mode. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2385--2397.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Nowak, K. L. and Biocca, F. The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence 12, 5(2003), 481--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. O'Conaill, B., & Frohlich, D. Timespace in the workplace: Dealing with interruptions. In Proc. CHI 1995, ACM Press (1995), 262--263. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ogan, A., Finkelstein, S., Mayfield, E., D'Adamo, C., Matsuda, N., and Cassell, J. Oh dear stacy!: social interaction, elaboration, and learning with teachable agents. In Proc. CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 39--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Picard, R. W., and Picard, R. (1997). Affective computing (Vol. 252). Cambridge: MIT press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Prendinger, H., and Ishizuka, M. Social role awareness in animated agents. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Autonomous agents. ACM Press (2001), 270--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F. and Dautenhahn, K. Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot?: Effects of Error, Task Type and Personality on HumanRobot Cooperation and Trust. In Proc. HRI 2015, ACM Press (2015), 141--148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Satake, S., Kanda, T., Glas, D. F., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., and Hagita, N. How to approach humans-strategies for social robots to initiate interaction. In Proc. HRI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 109--116). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of qualitative research, (1997), 273--285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Tapus, A., Ţăpuş, C., and Matarić, M. J. User-robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Intelligent Service Robotics1, 2(2008), 169--183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Thompson, C. A., Goker, M. H., and Langley, P. A personalized system for conversational recommendations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, (2004), 393--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Weizenbaum, J. ELIZA--a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM 9, 1(1966), 36--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Xiao, J., Stasko, J., and Catrambone, R. An empirical study of the effect of agent competence on user performance and perception. In Proc. AAMAS. IEEE Computer Society (2004),178--185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Xiao, J., Stasko, J., and Catrambone, R. The role of choice and customization on users' interaction with embodied conversational agents: effects on perception and performance. In Proc. CHI 2007, ACM Press (2007) 1293--1302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Yan, H., & Selker, T. Context-aware office assistant. In Proc 2000, ACM Press (2000), 276--279). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., and Rickertsen, K.. A metaanalysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. In Proc. 2007, ACM Press (2007), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Yorke-Smith, N., Saadati, S., Myers, K. L., and Morley, D. N. Like an intuitive and courteous butler: a proactive personal agent for task management. In Proc AAMAS 2009. 337--344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Watson Dialog Service. http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/de velopercloud/dialog.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. What Can You Do?: Studying Social-Agent Orientation and Agent Proactive Interactions with an Agent for Employees

    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
      DIS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems
      June 2016
      1374 pages
      ISBN:9781450340311
      DOI:10.1145/2901790

      Copyright © 2016 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 the author(s) 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: 4 June 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      DIS '16 Paper Acceptance Rate107of418submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate1,158of4,684submissions,25%

      Upcoming Conference

      DIS '24
      Designing Interactive Systems Conference
      July 1 - 5, 2024
      IT University of Copenhagen , Denmark

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader