Embodied Agents and Social Computing. Tim Bickmore A ffective C omputing G roup MIT Media Laboratory. Overview. Intellectual Framework Embodied Conversational Agents Etiquette Relational Agents. Intellectual Framework. Study human face-to-face conversation
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Embodied Agents andSocial Computing Tim Bickmore Affective Computing Group MIT Media Laboratory
Overview • Intellectual Framework • Embodied Conversational Agents • Etiquette • Relational Agents
Intellectual Framework • Study human face-to-face conversation • Not just as inspiration, but as model • The best (only?) examples we have to draw from. • Human social cognition is built to work this way. • Relevant Disciplines • Linguistics/Discourse/Sociolinguistics • Sociology/Ethnomethodology • Social Psychology • Discourse-inspired models of collaboration
Research Methodology • Study human-human interaction • Build computational models • Evaluate models
Monologues (0.06/s) Dialogues (0.07/s) ps/s ps/int energy ps/s ps/int energy Inter-dseg 0.340 0.837 0.832 0.332 0.533 0.844 intra-dseg 0.039 0.701 0.053 0.723 Empirical Studies:Posture Shifts Posture shifts with respect to discourse segment
SAM REA BEAT MACK LEARNING COMPANION Embodied Conversational Agents
What does this have to do with Etiquette? • Etiquette is about upholding a tacit “social contract” in interaction • Following the rules governing face-to-face interaction is an important part of this contract • Gricean cooperativeness • Goffman’s “face” • Turn-taking, etc. • But, these are relatively static with respect to roles and relationships.
Etiquette • How do people negotiate changing roles? • How do people negotiate changing relationships? • How can our computers do these things?
Relational Agents • Computational artifacts designed to build and maintain long-term, social-emotional relationships with their users.
Motivation • How do people benefit from social relationships? • Direct benefits • Instrumental, emotional, social support • Indirect benefits • Persuasion (e.g., sales) • Education (e.g., peer collaboration) • Health & Well-being • Helping (e.g., psychotherapy, behavior change)
TRUST 7.5 INTRO 7.0 6.5 6.0 EXTRO 5.5 5.0 SOCIAL TASK Small Talk and Trust • Real Estate Sales Agent ECA • Modeled initial buyer/agent interview • Hypothesis: • Small talk leads to increased trust in agent
Working Alliance andBehavior Change • Working alliance • A type of relationship • Measurable • Known mediating variable between relational activities and outcomes across a wide range of psychotherapeutic disciplines • Subscales: • Bond, Task, Goal
Application • Exercise Behavior Change • Relatively simple, brief duration • Several proven techniques exist that could be delivered by a software agent • Relevant to college subject population • Objectively measurable, real application • New guidelines are for daily exercise; gives subjects opportunity for daily interactions
Relational Manipulations • “Kitchen Sink” approach • Small talk • Empathy exchanges (following Klein) • Talk about the relationship • Humor • Politeness & Forms of Address • Reciprocal self-disclosure • Continuity behaviors • Talking about past and future (requires memory) • Nonverbal immediacy behaviors
RELATIONAL NON-RELATIONAL +Gestures +Facial animation +Proximity ALL FRAMES +Gaze aways CONCERN empathy Concern face +Proximity small talk, greeting, farewell, humor, positive feedback HAPPY Smile face Smile face +Proximity ENCOURAGE encouragement Nonverbal Behavior • Pre-compiled through BEAT
Wear pedometer • Daily report of activity • Daily interactions with agent • No contact with Ss Intake Intervention FollowUp 7dRecall 7dRecall • WAI • Demographics • Personality • Stage of Change • Self-Efficacy • Decisional Balance • System and agent • evaluation • Self-Efficacy • Decisional Balance Experiment • Treatments: CONTROL / NON-RELATIONAL / RELATIONAL • One-month intervention; one-month followup • 100 Subjects 30 days 30 days
More Info http://www.media.mit.edu/~bickmore