Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Journal of Social Robotics
Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics 6/2020

24.09.2020

The Effect of Design Features on Relationship Quality with Embodied Conversational Agents: A Systematic Review

verfasst von: Kate Loveys, Gabrielle Sebaratnam, Mark Sagar, Elizabeth Broadbent

Erschienen in: International Journal of Social Robotics | Ausgabe 6/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Embodied conversational agents (ECAs) are increasingly used in healthcare and other settings to improve self-management and provide companionship. Their ability to form close relationships with people is important for enhancing effectiveness and engagement. Several studies have looked at enhancing relationships with ECAs through design features focused on behaviours, appearance, or language. However, this evidence is yet to be systematically synthesized. This systematic review evaluates the effect of different design features on relationship quality with ECAs. A systematic search was conducted on electronic databases EMBASE, PsychInfo, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Web of Science in January–February 2019. 43 studies were included for review that evaluated the effect of a design feature on relationship quality and social perceptions or behaviours towards an ECA. Results synthesize effective design features and lay a scientific framework for improving relationships with ECAs in healthcare and other applications. Risk of bias for included studies was generally low, however there were some limitations in the research quality pertaining to outcome measurement and the reporting of statistics. Further research is needed to understand how to make ECAs effective and engaging for all consumers.
Vorheriger Artikel Influence of Reaction Time in the Emotional Response of a Companion Robot to a Child’s Aggressive Interaction

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Cassell J, Sullivan J, Churchill E, Prevost S (eds) (2000) Embodied conversational agents. MIT Press, New York
2.
Liew TW, Tan SM (2016) The effects of positive and negative mood on cognition and motivation in multimedia learning environment. J Educ Technol Soc 19(2):104–115
3.
Tamayo S, Perez-Marin D (2012) An agent proposal for reading understanding: applied to the resolution of maths problems. In: 2012 international symposium on computers in education (SIIE), pp 1–4
4.
Ryokai K, Vaucelle C, Cassell J (2003) Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning. J Comput Assist Learn 19(2):195–208
5.
Lopez V, Eisman EM, Castro JL (2008). A tool for training primary health care medical students: the virtual simulated patient. In 20th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence, pp 194–201
6.
Hayashi Y (2015) Influence of social communication skills on collaborative learning with a pedagogical agent: investigation based on the Autism-spectrum quotient. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on human-agent interaction, pp 135–138
7.
Roorda DL, Koomen HMY, Split JL, Oort FJ (2011) The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: a meta-analytic approach. Rev Educ Res 81(4):493–529
8.
Cornelius-White J (2007) Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 77(1):113–143
9.
McBreen H, Shade P, Jack M, Wyard P (2000) Experimental assessment of the effectiveness of synthetic personae for multi-modal e-retail applications. Proc Fourth Int Conf Autonom Agents 3(7):39–45
10.
Matthews A, Anderson N, Anderson J, Jack M (2008) Individualised product portrayals in the usability of a 3D embodied conversational agent in an ebanking scenario. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on intelligent virtual agents, pp 516–517
11.
Cassell J, Bickmore T, Billinghurst M, Campbell K, Chang K, Vilhjalmsson H, Yan H (1999) Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 520–527
12.
Arafa Y, Mamdani A (2000) Face-to-face interaction with an electronic personal sales assistant. Proc IEEE Conf Syst Man Cybern 2:792–797
13.
Beldad A, Hegner S, Hoppen J (2016) The effect of virtual sales agent (VSA) gender—product gender congruence on product advice credibility, trust in VSA and online vendor, and purchase intention. Comput Hum Behav 60:62–72
14.
Vasiljevs A, Skadina I, Deksne D, Martins KT, Vira LI (2017) Application of virtual agents for delivery of information services. In: Proceedings of the international scientific conference on new challenges of economic and business development, pp 667–678
15.
Cyr D, Hassanein K, Head M, Ivanov A (2007) The role of social presence in establishing loyalty in e-service environments. Interact Comput 19(1):43–56
16.
Gardiner PM, McCue KD, Negash LM, Cheng T, White LF, Yinusa-Nyahkoon L, Bickmore TW (2017) Engaging women with an embodied conversational agent to deliver mindfulness and lifestyle recommendations: a feasibility randomized control trial. Patient Educ Couns 100(9):1720–1729
17.
Provoost S, Lau HM, Ruwaard J, Riper H (2017) Embodied conversational agents in clinical psychology: a scoping review. J Med Internet Res 19(5):e151
18.
Bickmore T, Pfeifer L (2008) Relational agents for antipsychotic medication adherence. In: CHI’08 workshop on technology in mental health
19.
Edwards RA, Bickmore T, Jenkins L, Foley M, Manjourides J (2013) Use of an interactive computer agent to support breastfeeding. Matern Child Health J 17(10):1961–1968
20.
Bickmore TW, Schulman D, Sidner C (2013) Automated interventions for multiple health behaviors using conversational agents. Patient Educ Couns 92(2):142–148
21.
Bickmore TW, Silliman RA, Nelson K, Cheng DM, Winter M, Henault L, Paasche-Orlow MK (2013) A randomized controlled trial of an automated exercise coach for older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 61(10):1676–1683
22.
Watson A, Bickmore T, Cange A, Kulshreshtha A, Kvedar J (2012) An internet-based virtual coach to promote physical activity adherence in overweight adults: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e1
23.
House J, Kahn R (1985) Measures and concepts of social support. In: Social support and health. New York: Academic Press
24.
Hogan BE, Linden W, Najarian B (2002) Social support interventions: do they work? Clin Psychol Rev 22(3):381–440
25.
Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Gouin JP, Hantsoo L (2010) Close relationships, inflammation, and health. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35(1):33–38
26.
Uchino BN, Cacioppo JT, Kiecolt-Glaser JK (1996) The relationship between social support and physiological processes: a review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychol Bull 119(3):488
27.
Robinson H, Ravikulan A, Nater UM, Skoluda N, Jarrett P, Broadbent E (2017) The role of social closeness during tape stripping to facilitate skin barrier recovery: preliminary findings. Health Psychol 36(7):619
28.
Heinrichs M, Baumgartner T, Kirschbaum C, Ehlert U (2003) Social support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress. Biol Psychiat 54(12):1389–1398
29.
Valtora NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B (2016) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 102(3):1009–1016
30.
Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT (2010) Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 40(2):218–227
31.
Ring L, Barry B, Totzke K, Bickmore T (2013) Addressing loneliness and isolation in older adults: proactive affective agents provide better support. In: 2013 Humaine Association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction, pp 61–66. IEEE
32.
Sidner CL, Bickmore T, Nooraie B, Rich C, Ring L, Shayganfar M, Vardoulakis L (2018) Creating new technologies for companionable agents to support isolated older adults. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst (TiiS) 8(3):17
33.
Bickmore TW, Mauer D, Brown T (2009) Context awareness in a handheld exercise agent. Pervas Mobile Comput 5(3):226–235
34.
Jeong S, Breazeal C, Logan D, Weinstock P (2018) Huggable: the impact of embodiment on promoting socio-emotional interactions for young pediatric inpatients. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 1–13
35.
Kessler RC, McLeod JD (1985) Social support and mental health in community samples. Academic Press, New York
36.
Uchino BN (2006) Social support and health: a review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. J Behav Med 29(4):377–387
37.
Ring L, Shi L, Totzke K, Bickmore T (2015) Social support agents for older adults: longitudinal affective computing in the home. J Multimodal User Interfaces 9(1):79–88
38.
Broadbent E, Garrett J, Jepsen N, Ogilvie VL, Ahn HS, Robinson H, Peri K, Kerse N, Rouse P, Pillai A, MacDonald B (2018) Using robots at home to support patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 20(2):e45
39.
Joranson N, Pedersen I, Rokstad AMM, Ihlebaek C (2015) Effects of symptoms of agitation and depression in persons with dementia participating in robot-assisted activity: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 16(10):867–873
40.
Chipidza FE, Wallwork RS, Stern TA (2015) Impact of the doctor-patient relationship. In: The primary care companion for CNS disorders, vol 17, no 5
41.
Stewart MA (1995) Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J 152(9):1423
42.
Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware Jr, JE (1989) Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care S110–S127
43.
Roberts CS, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Baile WF, Gibertini M (1994) Influence of physician communication on newly diagnosed breast patients’ psychologic adjustment and decision-making. Cancer 74(S1):336–341
44.
Schillinger D, Bindman A, Wang F, Stewart A, Piette J (2004) Functional health literacy and the quality of physician–patient communication among diabetes patients. Patient Educ Couns 52(3):315–323
45.
Thompson L, McCabe R (2012) The effect of clinician-patient alliance and communication on treatment adherence in mental health care: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 12(1):87
46.
Alexander JA, Hearld LR, Mittler JN, Harvey J (2012) Patient–physician role relationships and patient activation among individuals with chronic illness. Health Serv Res 47(3):1201–1223
47.
48.
Pejsa T, Andrist S, Gleicher M, Mutlu B (2015) Gaze and attention management for embodied conversational agents. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst (TiiS) 5(1):3
49.
Kulms P, Kopp S, Krämer NC (2014) Let’s be serious and have a laugh: can humor support cooperation with a virtual agent?. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents, Springer, Cham, pp 250–259
50.
Partala T, Surakka V, Lahti J (2004) Affective effects of agent proximity in conversational systems. In: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, pp 353–356. ACM
51.
Cerekovic A, Aran O, Gatica-Perez D (2016) Rapport with virtual agents: what do human social cues and personality explain? IEEE Trans Affect Comput 8(3):382–395
52.
Romero OJ, Zhao R, Cassell J (2017) Cognitive-inspired conversational-strategy reasoner for socially-aware agents. In: IJCAI, pp 3807–3813
53.
Kang SH, Gratch J, Wiederhold BK, Riva G (2012) Socially anxious people reveal more personal information with virtual counselors that talk about themselves using intimate human back stories. Ann Rev Cyber Telemed 181:202–207
54.
Bergmann K, Eyssel F, Kopp S (2012) A second chance to make a first impression? How appearance and nonverbal behavior affect perceived warmth and competence of virtual agents over time. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents, pp 126–138. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
55.
Qiu L, Benbasat I (2009) Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation agents: a social relationship perspective to designing information systems. J Manag Inf Syst 25(4):145–182
56.
Shamekhi A, Liao QV, Wang D, Bellamy RK, Erickson T (2018) Face Value? Exploring the effects of embodiment for a group facilitation agent. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, p 391. ACM
57.
Kang SH, Phan T, Bolas M, Krum DM (2016) User perceptions of a virtual human over mobile video chat interactions. In: International conference on human-computer interaction, Springer, Cham, pp 107–118
58.
Cerekovic A, Aran O, Gatica-Perez D (2014) How do you like your virtual agent? Human-agent interaction experience through nonverbal features and personality traits. In: International workshop on human behavior understanding. Springer, Cham, pp 1–15
59.
Chattaraman V, Kwon WS, Gilbert JE, Ross K (2019) Should AI-Based, conversational digital assistants employ social-or task-oriented interaction style? A task-competency and reciprocity perspective for older adults. Comput Hum Behav 90:315–330
60.
Morry MN, Reich T, Kito M (2010) How do I see you relative to myself? Relationship quality as a predictor of self- and partner-enhancement within cross-sex friendships, dating relationships, and marriages. J Soc Psychol 150(4):369–392
61.
Dush CMK, Amato PR (2005) Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. J Personal Soc Relationsh 22(5):607–627
62.
Bickmore T, Pfeifer L, Schulman D (2011) Relational agents improve engagement and learning in science museum visitors. In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 55–67
63.
Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inq 1(4):285–293
64.
Allison T, Puce A, McCarthy G (2000) Social perception from visual cues: role of the STS region. Trends Cognit Sci 4(7):267–278
65.
Alotaibi MB, Rigas DI (2012) Fostering the user interface acceptance in customer relationship management: a multimedia-aided approach. In: 2012 ninth international conference on information technology-new generations, pp 796–801. IEEE
66.
Griffiths S, Eyssel FA, Philippsen A, Pietsch C, Wachsmuth S (2015) Perception of artificial agents and utterance friendliness in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on new frontiers in human-robot interaction at the AISB convention 2015
67.
Brave S, Nass C, Hutchinson K (2005) Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(2):161–178
68.
Creed C, Beale R (2012) User interactions with an affective nutritional coach. Interact Comput 24(5):339–350
69.
Dobrian F, Awan A, Joseph D, Ganjam A, Zhan J, Sekar V, Stoica I, Zhang H (2013) Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. Commun ACM 56(3):91
70.
Doherty K, Doherty G (2018) Engagement in HCI: conception, theory and measurement. ACM Comput Surv 51(5):1–39
71.
Stevens CJ, Pinchbeck B, Lewis T, Luerssen M, Pfitzner D, Powers DM, Gibert G (2016) Mimicry and expressiveness of an ECA in human-agent interaction: familiarity breeds content! Comput Cognit Sci 2(1):1
72.
Bickmore TW, Vardoulakis LMP, Schulman D (2013) Tinker: a relational agent museum guide. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 27(2):254–276
73.
Kang SH, Gratch J (2011) People like virtual counselors that highly-disclose about themselves. Ann Rev Cyber Telemed 167:143–148
74.
Kang SH, Gratch J (2014) Exploring users’ social responses to computer counseling interviewers’ behavior. Comput Hum Behav 34:120–130
75.
Bickmore TW, Picard RW (2005) Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 12(2):293–327
76.
77.
Gilani SN, Sheetz K, Lucas G, Traum D (2016) What kind of stories should a virtual human swap? In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Cham, pp 128–140
78.
Novick D, Gris I, Camacho A, Rayon A, Gonzalez T (2017) Bigger (Gesture) isn’t always better. In: International conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 609–619
79.
Hoegen R, Van Der Schalk J, Lucas G, Gratch J (2018) The impact of agent facial mimicry on social behavior in a prisoner’s dilemma. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on intelligent virtual agents. ACM, pp 275–280
80.
Novick D, Gris I (2014) Building rapport between human and ECA: a pilot study. In: International conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 472–480
81.
Krämer NC, Lucas G, Schmitt L, Gratch J (2018) Social snacking with a virtual agent–On the interrelation of need to belong and effects of social responsiveness when interacting with artificial entities. Int J Hum Comput Stud 109:112–121
82.
Von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC, Gratch J, Kang SH (2010) It doesn’t matter what you are! Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1641–1650
83.
Ranjbartabar H, Richards D, Bilgin A, Kutay C (2019) First impressions count! The role of the human’s emotional state on rapport established with an empathic versus neutral virtual therapist. In: IEEE transactions on affective computing
84.
Shamekhi A, Liao QV, Wang D, Bellamy RK, Erickson T (2018) Face Value? exploring the effects of embodiment for a group facilitation agent. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, p 391
85.
Partala T, Surakka V, Lahti J (2004) Affective effects of agent proximity in conversational systems. In: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction. ACM, pp 353–356
86.
Bickmore T, Cassell J (2001) Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 396–403
87.
Von der Pütten A, Hoffmann L, Klatt J, Krämer NC (2011) Quid pro quo? Reciprocal self-disclosure and communicative accomodation towards a virtual interviewer. In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 183–194
88.
Bickmore T, Schulman D (2009) A virtual laboratory for studying long-term relationships between humans and virtual agents. In: Proceedings of The 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Vol 1, pp 297–304. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
89.
Richards D, Bransky K (2014) ForgetMeNot: what and how users expect intelligent virtual agents to recall and forget personal conversational content. Int J Hum Comput Stud 72(5):460–476
90.
Andrist S, Mutlu B, Gleicher M (2013) Conversational gaze aversion for virtual agents. In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 249–262
91.
Kulms P, Krämer NC, Gratch J, Kang SH (2011) It’s in their eyes: a study on female and male virtual humans’ gaze. In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 80–92
92.
Takashima K, Omori Y, Yoshimoto Y, Itoh Y, Kitamura Y, Kishino F (2008) Effects of avatar’s blinking animation on person impressions. In: Graphics interface conference, pp 169–176. ACM
93.
Lisetti C, Amini R, Yasavur U, Rishe N (2013) I can help you change! an empathic virtual agent delivers behavior change health interventions. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst 4(4):19
94.
Ochs M, Pelachaud C, Mckeown G (2017) A user perception-based approach to create smiling embodied conversational agents. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 7(1):4
95.
Qiu L, Benbasat I (2005) Online consumer trust and live help interfaces: the effects of text-to-speech voice and three-dimensional avatars. Int J Hum Comput Interact 19(1):75–94
96.
Sagar M, Bullivant D, Robertson P, Efimov O, Jawed K, Kalarot R, Wu T (2014) A neurobehavioural framework for autonomous animation of virtual human faces. In: Proceedings of the SA’14 SIGGRAPH Asia workshop on autonomous virtual humans and social robot for tele-presence. ACM
97.
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444
Metadaten
Titel
The Effect of Design Features on Relationship Quality with Embodied Conversational Agents: A Systematic Review
verfasst von
Kate Loveys
Gabrielle Sebaratnam
Mark Sagar
Elizabeth Broadbent
Publikationsdatum
24.09.2020
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
International Journal of Social Robotics / Ausgabe 6/2020
Print ISSN: 1875-4791
Elektronische ISSN: 1875-4805
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00680-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2020

International Journal of Social Robotics 6/2020 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Robotic Understanding of Object Semantics by Referringto a Dictionary

OriginalPaper

Mini: A New Social Robot for the Elderly

OriginalPaper

The Secret Life of Robots: Perspectives and Challenges for Robot’s Behaviours During Non-interactive Tasks

OriginalPaper

I–C–E Framework: Concepts for Group Dynamics Research in Human-Robot Interaction

OriginalPaper

A Systematic Review of Attitudes, Anxiety, Acceptance, and Trust Towards Social Robots

OriginalPaper

Social Robots to Test Flexibility of Human Social Cognition

Premium Partner

    Marktübersichten

    Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen. 

    Zur Marktübersicht
    Bildnachweise