Getting Personal with Computers: How to Design Personalities for Agents

Recent research indicates that people respond socially to computers and perceive themas having personalities. Software agents are artifacts that particularly embody those qualities most likely to elicit social responses: fulelling a social role, using language, and exhibiting contingent behavior. People’s disposition to respond socially can be so strong that they may perceive software agents as having a personality, even when none was intended. The following is a discussion about intentionally designing personalities for social agents. To design personalities, it is necessary to consider the nature of personality and its role in interactions between people and artifacts. In addition, a case study of designing a social software agent is presented. The conclusions fromthis experience are summarized as guidelines for future agent developers. Personality is a fundamental linchpin of social relationships. In the context of human interaction, people automatically and unintentionally organize the behavior of their partners into simplifying traits (Uleman et al., 1996), and people tend to agree about which partners are best described by particular traits (Moskowitz, 1988). Beyond categorization, personality shapes the very nature of social relationships, even impacting how satisfying an interaction is for the participants (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997).

[1]  Akikazu Takeuchi,et al.  Situated facial displays: towards social interaction , 1995, CHI '95.

[2]  S. Kiesler,et al.  “Social” human-computer interaction , 1997 .

[3]  C. Nass,et al.  Adaptive agents and personality change: complementarity versus similarity as forms of adaptation , 1996, CHI Conference Companion.

[4]  Susan Feldman,et al.  Intelligent Agents: A Primer. , 1999 .

[5]  L. Horowitz,et al.  Self-derogations and the interpersonal theory. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  D. Christopher Dryer,et al.  The circumplex structure of interpersonal problems. , 1997 .

[7]  C. Nass,et al.  Voices, boxes, and sources of messages: Computers and social actors. , 1993 .

[8]  Richard A. Shweder,et al.  How relevant is an individual difference theory of personality? , 1975, Journal of personality.

[9]  Gordon B. Moskowitz,et al.  On-Line Evidence for Spontaneous Trait Inferences at Encoding , 1996 .

[10]  Myron Wish,et al.  Perceived Dimensions of Interpersonal Relations , 1981 .

[11]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  Directed Improvisation by Computer Characters , 1995, IJCAI 1995.

[12]  Susan Brennan,et al.  Effects of message style on users' attributions toward agents , 1994, CHI Conference Companion.

[13]  Jaron Lanier.  Agents of alienation , 1995, INTR.

[14]  F. Thomas,et al.  The illusion of life : Disney animation , 1981 .

[15]  Alan Wexelblat,et al.  Don't Make That Face: a report on anthropomorphizing an interface , 1998 .

[16]  Debbie S. Moskowitz,et al.  Cross-situational generality in the laboratory: Dominance and friendliness. , 1988 .

[17]  W. Mischel,et al.  Prototypes in Person Perception1 , 1979 .

[18]  D. Byrne.  The Attraction Paradigm , 1971 .

[19]  H. Conte,et al.  A circumplex model for interpersonal personality traits. , 1981 .

[20]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Computers are social actors: a review of current research , 1997 .

[21]  F. Thomas,et al.  Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life , 1981 .

[22]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[23]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Anthropomorphism: from Eliza to Terminator 2 , 1992, CHI.

[24]  C. Nass,et al.  Are Machines Gender Neutral? Gender‐Stereotypic Responses to Computers With Voices , 1997 .

[25]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Computers are social actors , 1994, CHI '94.

[26]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: performance assessments of computers subsequent to "self-" or "other-" evaluations , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[27]  D. Hendrick,et al.  Introduction , 1998, Thorax.

[28]  W. Mischel.  Personality and Assessment , 1996 .

[29]  D. K. Hildebrand.  Statistical Thinking For Behavioral Scientists , 1986 .

[30]  R. McCrae,et al.  An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[31]  Brian Knutson,et al.  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS OF EMOTION INTERPERSONAL TRAIT INFERENCES , 1996 .

[32]  Forrest W. Young.  Multidimensional Scaling: History, Theory, and Applications , 1987 .

[33]  W. Buxton.  Human-Computer Interaction , 1988, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[34]  D. Christopher Dryer,et al.  Wizards, guides, and beyond: rational and empirical methods for selecting optimal intelligent user interface agents , 1997, IUI '97.

[35]  D. Kiesler.  The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. , 1983 .

[36]  George R. Goethals,et al.  Perceiving one's own traits and others': The multifaceted self. , 1988 .

[37]  E. Aronson,et al.  The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness , 1966 .

[38]  Ted Selker,et al.  COACH: a teaching agent that learns , 1994, CACM.

[39]  M. Gurtman,et al.  Evaluating the Interpersonalness of Personality Scales , 1991 .

[40]  Jun Ohya,et al.  The representation of agents: anthropomorphism, agency, and intelligence , 1996, CHI Conference Companion.

[41]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Using a human face in an interface , 1994, CHI '94.

[42]  M. Lerner,et al.  Rejection as a consequence of perceived similarity. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[43]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Learning Interface Agents , 1993, AAAI.

[44]  D. Mettee,et al.  When similarity breeds contempt. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[45]  L. Horowitz,et al.  Inventory of interpersonal problems: psychometric properties and clinical applications. , 1988, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[46]  A. Furnham.  The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality , 1996 .

[47]  D. Christopher Dryer,et al.  When Do Opposites Attract? Interpersonal Complementarity Versus Similarity , 1997 .

[48]  E. Thoma.  Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality , 1965 .

[49]  Akikazu Takeuchi,et al.  Communicative facial displays as a new conversational modality , 1993, INTERCHI.

[50]  M. M. Spirek,et al.  Individual Differences in Coping with Stressful Mass Media An Activation-Arousal View , 1988 .

[51]  Tomoko Koda,et al.  Agents with faces : a study on the effects of personification of software agents , 1996 .

[52]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Artificial life meets entertainment: lifelike autonomous agents , 1995, CACM.

[53]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Looking for the bright side of user interface agents , 1995, INTR.

[54]  John M. Gottman,et al.  Blue-Collar and White-Collar Marital Interaction and Communication Orientation , 1988 .

[55]  C. Nass,et al.  Technology and Roles: A Tale of Two TVs , 1996 .

[56]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computer personalities be human personalities? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[57]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..