JACIII Vol.24 No.3 pp. 404-412
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2020.p0404


Do You Forgive Past Mistakes of Animated Agents? A Study of Instances of Assistance by Animated Agents

Masahide Yuasa

Shonan Institute of Technology
1-1-25 Tsujido-Nishikaigan, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 251-8511, Japan

October 10, 2019
March 9, 2020
May 20, 2020
animated agent, human–agent interaction, user interfaces, appearance, order effect
Do You Forgive Past Mistakes of Animated Agents? A Study of Instances of Assistance by Animated Agents

Agent animation after inputting a word: The animation indicated that the agent was running and searching for and collecting onomatopoeias from a database

Many studies on human–computer interaction have demonstrated that the visual appearance of an agent or a robot significantly influences people’s perceptions and behaviors. Several studies on the appearance of agents/robots have concluded that consistency between expectations from an agent’s or a robot’s appearance and performances was an important factor to the continuous use of these agents/robots. This is because users would stop interacting with the agents/robots when predictions are not met by actual experiences. However, previous studies mainly focused on the consistency between an initial expectation and a performance of a single instance of a task. The influence of the orders of successes or failures for more than one instance of a task has not been examined in detail. Therefore, in this study, we investigate the order effects of how the timing of sufficient or insufficient results of animated agents affects user evaluation. This will lead to the contribution to fill the lack of studies regarding more than one task in the field of human–computer interaction and to realize the continuous use of agents/robots as long as possible and to avoid stopping to use the agents/robots owing to their successful design. We create a simulated retrieval website and conduct an experiment using retrieval assistant agents that show both sufficient and insufficient results for more than one instance of retrieval tasks. The experimental results demonstrated a recency effect wherein the users significantly revised their evaluations of the animated agents based on new information more than that based on initial evaluations. The investigation of the case of repeated instances of a task and the influence of successes or failures is important for designing intelligent agents that may show incomplete results in intelligent tasks. Furthermore, the result of this study will contribute to build strategies to design behaviors of agents/robots that have a high or low evaluation based on their appearance in advance to prevent users from stopping use of the agents/robots.

Cite this article as:
M. Yuasa, “Do You Forgive Past Mistakes of Animated Agents? A Study of Instances of Assistance by Animated Agents,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.24, No.3, pp. 404-412, 2020.
Data files:
  1. [1] T. Koda and P. Maes, “Agents with faces: the effects of personification,” Proc. 5th IEEE Int. Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (RO-MAN’96 TSUKUBA), pp. 189-194, doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.1996.568812, 1996.
  2. [2] K. L. Nowak and F. Biocca, “The Effect of the Agency and Anthropomorphism on Users’ Sense of Telepresence, Copresence, and Social Presence in Virtual Environments,” PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality, Vol.12, No.5, pp. 481-494, doi: 10.1162/105474603322761289, 2003.
  3. [3] K. L. Nowak and C. Rauh, “The Influence of the Avatar on Online Perceptions of Anthropomorphism, Androgyny, Credibility, Homophily, and Attraction,” J. of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol.11, No.1, pp. 153-178, doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00308.x, 2005.
  4. [4] K. L. Nowak, “The Influence of Anthropomorphism and Agency on Social Judgment in Virtual Environments,” J. of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol.9, No.2, doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00284.x, 2004.
  5. [5] L. Swartz, “Why People Hate the Paperclip: Labels, Appearance, Behavior, and Social Responses to User Interface Agents, ” Honors thesis, Stanford University, 2003.
  6. [6] S. Buisine and J.-C. Martin, “The effects of speech–gesture cooperation in animated agents’ behavior in multimedia presentations,” Interacting with Computers, Vol.19, No.4, pp. 484-493, doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2007.04.002, 2007.
  7. [7] N. Sträfling, I. Fleischer, C. Polzer, D. Leutner, and N. C. Krämer, “Teaching learning strategies with a pedagogical agent: The effects of a virtual tutor and its appearance on learning and motivation,” J. of Media Psychology, Vol.22, No.2, pp. 73-83, doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000010, 2010.
  8. [8] S. Parise, S. Kiesler, L. Sproull, and K. Waters, “My partner is a real dog: cooperation with social agents,” Proc. of the 1996 ACM Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’96), pp. 399-408, doi: 10.1145/240080.240351, 1996.
  9. [9] T. Komatsu and S. Yamada, “How does the agents’ appearance affect users’ interpretation of the agents’ attitudes – experimental investigation on expressing the same artificial sounds from agents with different appearances,” Int. J. of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 260-279, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2011.537209, 2011.
  10. [10] E. Go, “Does Message Interactivity Help or Hinder the Effects of Anthropomorphic Online Chat Agents? Compensation vs. Expectation Effects in Organizational Websites,” Ph.D. dissertation (Mass Communications), The Pennsylvania State University, 2015.
  11. [11] J. Sung, H. I. Christensen, and R. E. Grinter, “Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use,” Proc. of the 4th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human Robot Interaction (HRI ’09), pp. 45-52, doi: 10.1145/1514095.1514106, 2009.
  12. [12] M. Lohse, “Bridging the gap between users’ expectations and system evaluations,” Proc. of 2011 IEEE Int. Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (ROMAN’11), doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005252, 2011.
  13. [13] S. Paepcke and L. Takayama, “Judging a bot by its cover: An experiment on expectation setting for personal robots,” Proc. of 2010 5th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’10), pp. 45-52, doi: 10.1109/HRI.2010.5453268, 2010.
  14. [14] T. Komatsu, R. Kurosawa, and S. Yamada, “How Does the Difference Between Users’ Expectations and Perceptions About a Robotic Agent Affect Their Behavior?,” Int. J. of Social Robotics, Vol.4, pp. 109-116, doi: 10.1007/s12369-011-0122-y, 2012.
  15. [15] Y. Fernaeus, M. Håkansson, M. Jacobsson, and S. Ljungblad, “How do you play with a robotic toy animal?: A Long-Term Study of Pleo,” Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’10), pp. 39-48, doi: 10.1145/1810543.1810549, 2010.
  16. [16] J. Fink, V. Bauwens, F. Kaplan, and P. Dillenbourg, “Living with a vacuum cleaning robot: A 6-month ethnographic study,” Int. J. of Social Robotics, Vol.5, pp. 389-408, doi: 10.1007/s12369-013-0190-2, 2013.
  17. [17] M. M. A. Graaf, S. Ben Allouch, and J. A. G. M. van Dijk, “Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes,” AISB Workshop on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction, 2014.
  18. [18] M. de Graaf, S. Ben Allouch, and J. van Dijk, “Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study,” Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot interaction (HRI’17), pp. 224-233, doi: 10.1145/2909824.3020236, 2017.
  19. [19] M. Yuasa and N. Mukawa, “The Facial Expression Effect of an Animated Agent on the Decisions Taken in the Negotiation Game,” CHI ’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2795-2800, doi: 10.1145/1240866.1241081, 2007.
  20. [20] S. E. Asch, “Forming impressions of personality,” J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.41, No.3, pp. 258-290, doi: 10.1037/h0055756, 1946.
  21. [21] A. S. Luchins, “Definitiveness of impression and primacy-recency in communications,” J. of Social Psychology, Vol.48, pp. 275-290, doi: 10.1080/00224545.1958.9919292, 1958.
  22. [22] C. W. Mayo and W. H. Crockett, “Cognitive complexity and primacy-recency effects in impression formation,” The J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.68, No.3, pp. 335-338, doi: 10.1037/h0041716, 1964.
  23. [23] W. Wilson and C. Insko, “Recency effects in face-to-face interaction,” J. of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.9, No.1, pp. 21-23, doi: 10.1037/h0025717, 1968.
  24. [24] R. G. Flôres and V. A. Ginsburgh, “The Queen Elisabeth musical competition: How fair is the final ranking?” The Statistician, Vol.45, pp. 97-104, doi: 10.2307/2348415, 1996.
  25. [25] H. Glejser and B. Heyndels, “Efficiency and inefficiency in the ranking in competitions: The case of the Queen Elisabeth Music Contest,” J. of Cultural Economics, Vol.25, pp. 109-129, doi: 10.1023/A:1007659804416, 2011.
  26. [26] W. B. de Bruin, “Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations,” Acta Psychologica, Vol.118, No.3, pp. 245-260, doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.08.005, 2005.
  27. [27] W. B. de Bruin, “Save the last dance II: Unwanted serial position effects in figure skating judgments,” Acta Psychologica, Vol.123, No.3, pp. 299-311, doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.01.009, 2006.
  28. [28] J. A. Wagner and N. M. Klein, “Who wants to go first? order effects within a series of competitive sales presentations,” J. of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 259-276, doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134270305, 2007.
  29. [29] J. M. Miller and J. A. Krosnick, “The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.62, No.3, pp. 291-330, doi: 10.1086/297848, 1998.
  30. [30] S. K. Asare, “The Auditor’s Going-Concern Decision: Interaction of Task Variables and the Sequential Processing of Evidence,” The Accounting Review, Vol.67, No.2, pp. 379-393, 1992.
  31. [31] T. Bauer, “The Effects of Situated Client Identity and Professional Identity Salience on Auditor Judgments,” CAAA Annual Conf. 2011, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1742124, 2011.
  32. [32] J. Goodman-Delahunty and M. K. Dhami, “A Forensic Examination of Court Reports,” Australian Psychologist, Vol.48, No.1, pp. 32-40, doi: 10.1111/j.1742-9544.2012.00082.x, 2012.
  33. [33] J. H. Kerstholt and J. L. Jackson, “Judicial Decision Making: Order of Evidence Presentation and Availability of Background Information,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol.12, No.5, pp. 445-454, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199810)12:5<445::AID-ACP518>3.0.CO;2-8, 1998.
  34. [34] E. R. Igou and H. Bless, “Conversational Expectations as a Basis for Order Effects in Persuasion,” J. of Language and Social Psychology, Vol.26, No.3, pp. 260-273, doi: 10.1177/0261927X06303454, 2007.
  35. [35] E. R. Igou and H. Bless, “Inferring the Importance of Arguments: Order Effects and Conversational Rules,” J. of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.39, No.1, pp. 91-99, doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00509-7, 2003.
  36. [36] C. P. Haugtvedt and D. T. Wegener, “Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective,” J. of Consumer Research, Vol.21, No.1, pp. 205-218, doi: 10.1086/209393, 1994.
  37. [37] W. Wilson and C. Insko, “Recency effects in face-to-face interaction,” J. of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.9, No.1, pp. 21-23, doi: 10.1037/h0025717, 1968.
  38. [38] A. L. Baylor and Y. Kim, “Pedagogical Agent Design: The Impact of Agent Realism, Gender, Ethnicity, and Instructional Role,” Proc. Int. Conf. on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2004), pp. 592-603, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30139-4_56, 2004.
  39. [39] J. N. Bailenson, K. Swinth, C. Hoyt, S. Persky, A. Dimov, and J. Blascovich, “The independent and interactive effects of embodied-agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments,” Presence, Vol.14, No.4, pp. 379-393, doi: 10.1162/105474605774785235, 2005.
  40. [40] J. Goetz, S. Kiesler, and A. Powers, “Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation,” Proc. of 2003 IEEE Int. Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (ROMAN’03), pp. 55-60, doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2003.1251796, 2003.
  41. [41] M. Lohse, F. Hegel, and B. Wrede, “Domestic Applications for social robots – a user study on appearance and function,” J. of Physical Agents, Vol.2, No.2, pp. 21-32, 2008.
  42. [42] B. Kirsten, F. Eyssel, and S. Kopp, “A second chance to make a first impression? How appearance and nonverbal behavior affect perceived warmth and competence of virtual agents over time,” Proc. Int. Conf. on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA2012), pp. 126-138, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33197-8_13, 2012.
  43. [43] M. Yuasa and A. Satou, “Method to Foster Continuous System Use through a Cooperative Animated Agent –Agent Interface Design by Cooperative Principle–,” IEICE Trans. on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences, Vol.97-A, No.6, pp. 396-405, 2004 (in Japanese).
  44. [44] R. Likert, “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” Archives of Psychology, No.140, 1932.
  45. [45] R. M. Hogarth and H. J. Einhorn, “Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model,” Cognitive Psychology, Vol.24, No.1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J, 1992.
  46. [46] S. Highhouse and A. Gallo, “Order Effects in Personnel Decision Making,” Human Performance, Vol.10, No.1, pp. 31-46, doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1001_2, 1997.
  47. [47] M. Yuasa, K. Saito, and N. Mukawa, “Brain activity associated with graphic emoticons. The effect of abstract faces in communication over a computer network,” Electrical Engineering in Japan, Vol.177, No.3, pp. 36-45, doi: 10.1002/eej.21162, 2011.
  48. [48] H. Kamide, K. Kawabe, S. Shigemi, and T. Arai, “Development of a psychological scale for general impressions of humanoid,” Advanced Robotics, Vol.27, No.1, pp. 3-17, doi: 10.1080/01691864.2013.751159, 2012.
  49. [49] D. Li, P. L. P. Rau, and Y. Li, “A Cross-cultural Study: Effect of Robot Appearance and Task,” Int. J. of Social Robotics, Vol.2, pp. 175-186, doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9, 2010.
  50. [50] K. S. Haring, D. Silvera-Tawil, K. Watanabe, and M. Velonaki, “The Influence of Robot Appearance and Interactive Ability in HRI: A Cross-Cultural Study,” Int. Conf. on Social Robotics (ICSR2016), pp. 392-401, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_38, 2016.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Oct. 23, 2020