Joseph A. Bonito
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a pilot study on the role of expectations in human-computer interaction on a decision-making task. Participants (N=70) were randomly assigned to one of 5 different computer partners or to a human partner. After completing the rankings for the Desert Survival Task, participants engaged in a dialog with their computer or human partners. Results revealed that interaction with human partners was more expected and more positively evaluated than interaction with computer agents. In addition, the addition of human-like qualities to computer interfaces did not increase expectedness or evaluations as predicted. Correlation analysis for the five computer conditions demonstrated that expectations and evaluations do effect influence and perceptions of the partner. Discussion focuses on ways to coordinate expectations, interface design, and task objectives.
- 1.Aron, A., Aron, E. N., and Smollan, D. "Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 63, pp. 596-612, 1992.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 2.Bengtsson, B., Burgoon, J. K., Cederberg, C., Bonito, J. A., and Lundberg, M. "The impact of anthropomorphic interfaces on influence, understanding, and credibility." Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Computer and Systems Sciences, Maui, HI. 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3.Bengtsson, B., Burgoon, J. K., Cederberg, C., Bonito, J., and Lundeberg, M. "Virtual communication and the impact of anthropomorphic interfaces." Paper presented to the 2nd Swedish Symposium on MultimodaI Communication, Lund, Sweden. 1998.Google Scholar
- 4.Beskow, J. "Rule-Based Audiovisual Speech." Unpublished masters thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1995.Google Scholar
- 5.Bonito, J. A. and Hollingshead, A. B. "Participation in small groups," in Burleson, B. R. (ed.) Communication Yearbook 20. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1997, pp. 227- 261.Google Scholar
- 6.Buck, R. "From DNA to MTV: The spontaneous communication of emotional messages," in Greene, J. O. (ed.) Message production: Advances in communication theory. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1997, pp. 313-340.Google Scholar
- 7.Burgoon, J. K. "Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory," in Wiseman, R. L. (ed.) Intercultural communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995, pp. 194-214.Google Scholar
- 8.Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengsston, B., Ramirez, A., and Dunbar, N. "Testing the Interactivity Model: Communication Processes, Partner Assessments, and the Quality of Collaborative Work," Journal of Management and information Systems, in press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9.Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., and Koch, P. T. "The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance," Communication Monographs, vol. 65, pp. 308-335, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 10.Burgoon, J. K. and White, C. H. "Researching nonverbal message production: A view from interaction adaptation theory.," in Greene, J. O. (ed.) Message production: Advances in communication theory. Mawah, N J: Erlbaum, 1997, pp. 279-312.Google Scholar
- 11.Burgoon, J. K. "A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test," Human Communication Research, vol. 4, pp. 129-142, 1978.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 12.Burgoon, J. K. and Hale, J. L. "Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication," Communication Monographs, vol. 54, pp. 19-41, 1987.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 13.Burgoon, J. K. and Hale, J. L. "Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors," Communication Monographs, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 58-79, 1988.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 14.Burgoon, J. K. and Jones, S. B. "Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations," Human Communication Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 131- 146, 1976.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 15.Burgoon, J. K. and LePoire, B. A. "Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior," Human Communication Research, vol. 20, no. i, pp. 67- 96, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 16.Burgoon, J. K. and Walther, J. B. "Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations," Human Communication Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 232-265, 1990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 17.Burgoon, J. K., Walther, J. B., and Baesler, E. J. "Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal touch," Human Communication Research, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 237-263, 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 18.Cahn, D. D. and Shulman, G. M. "The perceived understanding instrument," Communication Research Reports, vol. 1, pp. 122-125, 1984.Google Scholar
- 19.Fisek, M. H., Berger, J., and Norman, R. Z. "Participation in hetero and homogeneous groups: A theoretical integration," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 97, pp. 114-142, 1991.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 20.Fisek, M. H., Berger, J., and Norman, R. Z. "Two issues in the assessment of the adequacy of formal sociological models of human behavior," Social Science Research, vol. 26, pp. 153-169, 1997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 21.Fisek, M. H. and Ofshe, R. "The process of status evolution," Sociometry, vol. 33, pp. 327-335, 1970.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 22.Hallowell, E. M. "The human moment at work," Harvard Business Review, vol. 77, pp. 58-64, 1999.Google Scholar
- 23.Kellerman, K. "The conversational MOP: A model of patterned and pliable behavior," in Hewes, D. E. (ed.) The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995, pp. 181-224.Google Scholar
- 24.Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., and Waters, K. "A prisoner's dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and human-like computers," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 70, pp. 47-65, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 25.Knottnerus, J. D. "Social structure analysis and status generalization: The contributions and potential of expectation states theory," in Szmatka, J., Skvoretz, j., and Berger, J. (eds.) Status, network, and structure: Theory development in group processes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997, pp. 119-136.Google Scholar
- 26.Lundeberg, M. "Multi-Modal Speech Communication Development of a Test-Environment." Unpublished masters thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1997.Google Scholar
- 27.McCroskey, J. C., Hamilton, P. R., and Weiner, A. M. "The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction," Human Communication Research, vol. 1, pp. 42-52, 1974.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 28.McCroskey, J. C. and McCain, T. A. "The measurement of interpersonal attraction," Speech Monographs, vol. 41, pp. 261-266, 1974.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 29.McCroskey, J. C. and Young, T. J. "Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades," Speech Monographs, vol. 41, pp. 261- 266, 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 30.Meeker, B. F., "Performance evaluation," in Lawler, M. F. (ed.) Group processes: Sociology analyses. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1994, pp. 95-117.Google Scholar
- 31.Moon, Y. and Nass, C. "How "real" are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction," Communication Research, vol. 23, pp. 651-674, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 32.Moon, Y. "How "Real" are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in humancomputer interaction," Communication Research, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 651-674, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 33.Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., and Moon, Y. "Can computers be teammates?," International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, pp. 669-678, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 34.Nass, C., Steuer, J., Henriksen, L., and Dryer, C. "Machines, Social, and Ethopoeia: Performance Assessments of Computers Subsequent to Self- or Other-Evaluations," International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, vol. 40 pp. 543-559, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 35.Skvoretz, J. V. "Models of participation in statusdifferentiated groups," Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 51, pp. 43-57, 1988.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 36.Smith-Lovin, L., Skvoretz, J. V., and Hudson, C. G. "Status and participation in six- person groups: A test of Skvoretz's comparative status model," Social Forces, vol. 64, pp. 992-1005, 1986.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 37.Smith, S. W. "Perceptual processing of nonverbalrelational messages," in Hewes, D. E. (ed.) The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication. Hillsday, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995, pp. 87-112.Google Scholar
- 38.Webster, Jr. M., Hysom, S. J., and Fultmer, E. M. "Sexual orientation and occupation as status," in Skvoretz, J. and Szmatka, J. (eds.) Advances in group processes. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1998, pp. 1-22.Google Scholar
- 39.Woodall, W. G. "Encoding specificity and nonverbal cue context: An expansion of episodic memory research," Communication Monographs, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 39-53, 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- The role of expectations in human-computer interaction
Recommendations
How is your user feeling? inferring emotion through human-computer interaction devices
Emotion can influence important user behaviors, including purchasing decisions, technology use, and customer loyalty. The ability to easily assess users' emotion during live system use therefore has practical significance for the design and improvement ...
Role-Based Human-Computer Interactions
With increased understanding of cognitive informatics and the advance of computer technologies, it is becoming clear that human-computer interaction HCI is an interaction between two kinds of intelligences, i.e., natural intelligence and artificial ...
A Review of Augmented Reality-Based Human-Computer Interaction Applications of Gesture-Based Interaction
HCI International 2019 – Late Breaking PapersAbstractIn recent years, augmented reality (AR) is an extremely growing field in information technology, computer science, and computer engineering. Although there are many recent works that use augmented reality for different purposes, most of the ...
Comments