Agency in Human-Smart Device Relationship: an Exploratory Study

In this paper, we investigate the relationship people have with their smart devices. We use the concept of agency to capture aspects of users’ sense of mastery as they relate to their device. This study gives preliminary evidence of the existence of two independent dimensions of agency for modeling the interaction between humans and smart devices: (i) user agency and (ii) device agency. These constructs emerged from an exploratory factorial analysis conducted on a survey data collected from 587 participants. In addition, we investigate the correlation between user agency and device agency with background variables of the respondents. Finally, we argue that mapping the users’ dynamics with their device into user agency and device agency fosters a better understanding of the needs of the users and helps in designing interfaces tailored for the specific capabilities and expectations of the users.

[1]  John E. McEneaney.  Agency Effects in Human–Computer Interaction , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[2]  Deborah G. Johnson,et al.  AI, agency and responsibility: the VW fraud case and beyond , 2019, AI & SOCIETY.

[3]  John E. McEneaney.  Agency Attribution in Human-Computer Interaction , 2009, HCI.

[4]  R. Alarcón,et al.  Non‐normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? , 2017, Psicothema.

[5]  三嶋 博之.  The theory of affordances , 2008 .

[6]  Paul Kline,et al.  An easy guide to factor analysis , 1993 .

[7]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Direct manipulation for comprehensible, predictable and controllable user interfaces , 1997, IUI '97.

[8]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products , 2004, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[9]  D. Hoffman,et al.  Relationship journeys in the internet of things: a new framework for understanding interactions between consumers and smart objects , 2018, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

[10]  Claudio Vitari,et al.  Affordance Theory in the IS Discipline: a Review and Synthesis of the Literature , 2014, AMCIS.

[11]  Andy Field,et al.  Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[12]  Marie-Claude Boudreau,et al.  Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[13]  Russell W. Belk,et al.  Servant, friend or master? The relationships users build with voice-controlled smart devices , 2019, Journal of Marketing Management.

[14]  B. Berberian,et al.  Man-Machine teaming: a problem of Agency , 2019, IFAC-PapersOnLine.

[15]  D. Coyle,et al.  The experience of agency in human-computer interactions: a review , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[16]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Beyond usability: process, outcome and affect in human-computer interactions , 2001 .

[17]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  Marketing Research with SPSS , 2008 .

[18]  Sumeet Gupta,et al.  Investigating the intention to purchase digital items in social networking communities: A customer value perspective , 2011, Inf. Manag..

[19]  N. Epley,et al.  The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle , 2014 .

[20]  Peter C. Wright,et al.  Putting ‘felt-life’ at the centre of human–computer interaction (HCI) , 2005, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[21]  Dong‐Hee Shin,et al.  Cross‐analysis of usability and aesthetic in smart devices: what influences users' preferences? , 2012 .

[22]  H. Kögler.  Agency and the Other: On the intersubjective roots of self-identity , 2012 .

[23]  Ian Hutchby,et al.  Technologies, Texts and Affordances , 2001 .

[24]  Alex Gillespie,et al.  Position exchange: The social development of agency , 2012 .

[25]  Atsushi Sato,et al.  Illusion of sense of self-agency: discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self-agency, but not the sense of self-ownership , 2005, Cognition.

[26]  R. Belk.  Possessions and the Extended Self , 1988 .

[27]  S. Greenberg,et al.  The Psychology of Everyday Things , 2012 .