Tim Merritt
Kevin McGee
ABSTRACT
Previous research on conversational, competitive, and cooperative systems suggests that people respond differently to humans and AI agents in terms of perception and evaluation of observed team-mate behavior. However, there has not been research examining the relationship between participants' protective behavior toward human/AI team-mates and their beliefs about their behavior. A study was conducted in which 32 participants played two sessions of a cooperative game, once with a "presumed" human and once with an AI team-mate; players could "draw fire" from a common enemy by "yelling" at it. Overwhelmingly, players claimed they "drew fire" on behalf of the presumed human more than for the AI team-mate; logged data indicates the opposite. The main contribution of this paper is to provide evidence of the mismatch in player beliefs about their actions and actual behavior with humans or agents and provides possible explanations for the differences.
- Abraham, A. T., and McGee, K. AI for dynamic team-mate adaptation in games. In Proc. CIG '10 (Aug. 2010), 419--426.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Beaton, B., Harrison, S., and Tatar, D. Digital drumming: a study of co-located, highly coordinated, dyadic collaboration. In Proc. CHI '10, ACM Press (2010), 1417--1426. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Blascovich, J. A theoretical model of social influence for increasing the utility of collaborative virtual environments. In Proc. CVE '02, ACM Press (2002), 25--30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fehr, E., and Rockenbach, B. Human altruism: economic, neural, and evolutionary perspectives. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 14, 6 (Dec. 2004), 784--790.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gajadhar, B., de Kort, Y., and IJsselsteijn, W. Influence of social setting on player experience of digital games. In Proc. of CHI EA '08, ACM Press (2008), 3099--3104. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hayashi, Y., and Miwa, K. Cognitive and emotional characteristics of communication in Human-Human/Human-Agent interaction. In Proc. CogSci '09, Springer-Verlag (2009), 267--274. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johnson, D., and Gardner, J. The media equation and team formation: Further evidence for experience as a moderator. IJHCS 65, 2 (2007), 111--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., and Waters, K. A prisoner's dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and human-like computers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 1 (Jan. 1996), 47--65.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kuziemko, I., Buell, R. W., Reich, T., and Norton, M. I. "last-place aversion": Evidence and redistributive implications. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series (July 2011), 17234+.Google Scholar
- Lim, S., and Reeves, B. Computer agents versus avatars: Responses to interactive game characters controlled by a computer or other player. IJHCS 68, 1-2 (January 2010), 57--68. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mandryk, R. L., Inkpen, K. M., and Calvert, T. W. Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies. Behav. Inform. Technol. 25, 2 (Apr. 2006), 141--158.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Merritt, T., Chuah, T. L., Ong, C., and McGee, K. Choosing human team-mates: higher enjoyment and preference for human vs. AI team-mates in cooperative games. In Proc. FDG '11, ACM Press (2011). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Merritt, T., Ong, C., Chuah, T., and McGee, K. Did you notice? artificial Team-Mates take risks for players intelligent virtual agents. vol. 6895 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2011, ch. 37, 338--349. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Merritt, T. R., Tan, K. B., Ong, C., Thomas, A., Chuah, T. L., and McGee, K. Are artificial team-mates scapegoats in computer games. In Proc. CSCW '11, ACM Press (2011), 685--688. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miwa, K., and Terai, H. Analysis of human-human and human-computer agent interactions from the viewpoint of design of and attribution to a partner. In Proc. CogSci '06, Springer-Verlag (2006), 597--602.Google Scholar
- Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., and Moon, Y. Can computers be teammates? IJHCS 45, 6 (December 1996), 669--678. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nass, C., Isbister, K., and Lee, E. Truth is beauty: Researching embodied conversational agents. In Embodied conversational agents, J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, and E. Churchill, Eds. MIT Press, Apr. 2000, 374--402. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nowak, K. L., and Biocca, F. The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism of users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence-Teleop. Virt. 12 (Oct. 2003), 481--494. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oviatt, S., and Adams, B. Designing and evaluating conversational interfaces with animated characters. In Embodied conversational agents, J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, and E. Churchill, Eds. MIT Press, Apr. 2000, 319--345. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ravaja, N., Saari, T., Turpeinen, M., Laarni, J., Salminen, M., and Kivikangas, M. Spatial Presence and Emotions during Video Game Playing: Does It Matter with Whom You Play? Presence-Teleop. Virt. 15 (August 2006), 381--392. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reeves, B., and Nass, C. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge U. Press, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., and Cohen, J. D. The neural basis of economic Decision-Making in the ultimatum game. Science 300, 5626 (June 2003), 1755--1758.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shechtman, N., and Horowitz, L. M. Media inequality in conversation: how people behave differently when interacting with computers and people. In Proc. CHI '03, ACM Press (2003), 281--288. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tankersley, D., Stowe, C. J., and Huettel, S. A. Altruism is associated with an increased neural response to agency. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 2 (Jan. 2007), 150--151.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Turkle, S. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. The MIT Press, Sept. 2005.Google Scholar
- von der Pütten, A. M., Kramer, N. C., Gratch, J., and Kang, S.-H. "it doesn't matter what you are!" explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 6 (Nov. 2010), 1641--1650. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., and Groner, R. Playing online games against computervs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 5 (Sept. 2008), 2274--2291. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Williams, R. Aggression, competition and computer games: computer and human opponents. Comput. Hum. Behav. 18, 5 (Sept. 2002), 495--506.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Protecting artificial team-mates: more seems like less
Recommendations
Did you notice? artificial team-mates take risks for players
IVA'11: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent virtual agentsArtificial agents are increasingly included in digital games, often taking on a role as a team-mate with human players. An interesting area of focus is the differences in player responses to teammates that are either controlled by another human or a ...
Choosing human team-mates: perceived identity as a moderator of player preference and enjoyment
FDG '11: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital GamesAlthough there has been research suggesting that people will treat computers socially and even consider computers as team-mates, there does not seem to have been any research looking specifically at how the perception of team-mate identity affects game ...
Are artificial team-mates scapegoats in computer games
CSCW '11: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative workIn cooperative games that involve team-mates that are controlled by either a computer or another human player, is there a difference in how humans assign credit or blame? There has been some related work on computers as team-mates and credit/blame ...
Comments