My agent as myself or another: effects on credibility and listening to advice

ABSTRACT

People consider other people who resemble them to be more persuasive. Users may consider embodied conversational agents, or ECAs, to be more persuasive if the agents resemble them. In an experimental study, we found that users rated the persuasiveness of agents that resemble them higher than other agents. However, actual advice-taking diverged from this pattern; when users created the agents, users changed their choices less when interacting with the agents that resembled them. We conducted a follow-up study and found that resemblance and self-esteem affect interactions with agents that resemble users. We discuss the use of self-report and behavioral data in evaluations of agent interfaces and how agents that resemble users might foster particular social interactions with a system. We suggest that agents that resemble users may be more persuasive in advising users about their actions and decisions.

REFERENCES

• 1: Aaker, J. L. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), 347--356, 1997.
• 2: Annesi, J. J. Effects of computer feedback on adherence to exercise. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1998, 87, 723--730.
• 3: Jeremy N. Bailenson , Andrew C. Beall , Jim Blascovich , Mike Raimundo , Max Weisbuch, Intelligent Agents Who Wear Your Face: Users' Reactions to the Virtual Self, Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents, p.86-99, September 10-11, 2001
• 4: Beggan, J. K. On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229--237, 1992.
• 5: James Bo Begole , John C. Tang , Rosco Hill, Rhythm modeling, visualizations and applications, Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, p.11-20, November 02-05, 2003, Vancouver, Canada [doi>10.1145/964696.964698]
• 6: Belk, R. W. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139--168, 1988.
• 7: BodyMedia. http://www.bodymedia.com/
• 8: Brock, T. C. Communicator-recipient similarity and decision-change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 650--654, 1965.
• 9: Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press, New York, 1971.
• 10: DeBruine, L. M. Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc. of The Royal Society, London, B(269), 1307--1312, 2002.
• 11: Duval, T. S., Duval, V. H., and Mulilis, J.-P. Effects of self-focus, discrepancy between self and standard, and outcome expectancy favorability on the tendency to match self to standard or to withdraw. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 340--348, 1992.
• 12: Duval, T. S. and Wicklund, R. A. A theory of objective self-awareness. Academic Press, New York, 1972.
• 13: Eady, Patrick M. and J. Clayton Lafferty. The Subarctic Survival Situation. Experiential Learning Methods, Plymouth, Michigan, 1975.
• 14: Fishkin, K. P., Wang, M., Borriello, G. "A Ubiquitous System for Medication Monitoring," Pervasive 2004.
• 15: B. J. Fogg, Persuasive technologie301398, Communications of the ACM, v.42 n.5, p.26-29, May 1999 [doi>10.1145/301353.301396]
• 16: Gaertner, S. L. and Dovidio, J. F. The subtlety of white racism, arousal, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 691--707, 1977.
• 17: Hans Peter Graf , Eric Cosatto , Tony Ezzat, Face Analysis for the Synthesis of Photo-Realistic Talking Heads, Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition 2000, p.189, March 26-30, 2000
• 18: Gratch, J. Ockhmatovskaia, A., Lamothe, F., Marsella, S., Morales, M., van der Werf, R. J., and Morency, L. P. 2006. 6^th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Marina del Rey, CA, 2006.
• 19: Henderlong, J.; Lepper, M. R. The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, (2002), 774--795.
• 20: Koda, T and Maes, P. Agents with Faces: The Effects of Personification of Agents. Proc. CHI 1996, ACM Press (1996), 239--245.
• 21: Lafferty, J. C. and Pond, A. W. Desert survival situation. Human Synergistics, Plymouth, Michigan, 1987.
• 22: Morishima, S. Face Analysis and Synthesis. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 18(3). (2001), 26--34.
• 23: Clifford Nass , Eun-Young Kim , Eun-Ju Lee, When my face is the interface: an experimental comparison of interacting with one's own face or someone else's face, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.148-154, April 18-23, 1998, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/274644.274667]
• 24: Nemiroff, P. M., and Pasmore, W. A. Lost at sea: A consensus seeking task, Annual Handbook for Facilitators, 1975.
• 25: Piedmont, R. The revised NEO personality inventory: Clinical and research applications The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical Psychology. Plenum Press, New York, 1998.
• 26: Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Revised edition. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1989.
• 27: Karthi Selvarajah , Debbie Richards, The use of emotions to create believable agents in a virtual environment, Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 25-29, 2005, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1082473.1082476]
• 28: Shanteau, J., and Nagy, G. F Probability of acceptance in dating choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 522--533, 1979.
• 29: Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J. H., and Waters, K. When the interface is a face. Human Computer Interaction, 11 (1996), 97--124.
• 30: Ukens, L. Adventure in the Amazon. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 1998.
• 31: Vugt, H. C., Konijn, E. A., Hoorn, J. F., Veldhuis, J. Why Fat Interface Characters Are Better e-Health Advisors. IVA 2006: Marina Del Rey, CA, USA. August 21--23, 1--13.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  A. General Literature
  A.0 GENERAL

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)