Anthropomorphic Agents as a User Interface Paradigm: Experimental Findings and a Framework for Research

Anthropomorphic Agents as a User Interface Paradigm: Experimental Findings and a Framework for Research Richard Catrambone (rc7@prism.gatech.edu) School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 274 5th Street Atlanta, GA 30332-0170 USA John Stasko (stasko@cc.gatech.edu) Jun Xiao (junxiao@cc.gatech.edu) College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0280 USA Abstract Research on anthropomorphic agent interfaces has produced widely divergent results. We suggest that this is due to insufficient consideration of key factors that influence the perception and effectiveness of agent-based interfaces. We propose a framework for studying anthropomorphic agents that can systematize the research. The framework emphasizes features of the agent, the user, and the task the user is performing. Our initial experiment within this framework manipulated the agent’s appearance (lifelike versus iconic) and the nature of the user’s task (carrying out procedures versus providing opinions). We found that the perception of the agent was strongly influenced by the task while features of the agent that we manipulated had little effect. Introduction If you could ask for assistance from a smart, spoken natural language help system, would that be an improvement over an on-line reference manual? Presumably the answer, in most cases, is yes, for two reasons. First, the spoken natural language aspect would allow you to speak your questions rather than having to type them. Generally this is a faster approach for most people. Second, the smart aspect would improve the chance of the help system finding the information you want even if you do not state the query using the correct or most appropriate terms. The state of the art in this style of interface is a human user consultant. Does it matter that the user consultant has a face and that the face can have expressions and convey a personality? Would a face affect you in terms of your comfort and satisfaction with the interaction? Would the presence of a face make the help or advice you receive more persuasive? The answers to such questions have implications for the design of training systems, customer service, information kiosks, and many other applications. Many people believe that anthropomorphic computer interfaces have great potential to be beneficial for a number of reasons. Agents could act as smart assistants, much like travel agents or investment advisors, helping people manage the ever-growing amount of information encountered today (Lyman & Varian, 2002). Further, a conversational interface appears to be a natural dialog style in which the user does not have to learn complex command structure and functionality (Laurel, 1990). An anthropomorphic interface could use intonation, gaze patterns, and facial expressions, in addition to words, for conveying information and affect. The human face seems to occupy a privileged position for conveying a great deal of information, including relatively subtle information, efficiently (Fridlund & Gilbert, 1985). Anthropomorphic interfaces could make a computer more human-like, engaging, entertaining, approachable, and understandable to the user, thus harboring potential to build trust and establish relationships with users, and make them feel more comfortable with computers. These potential advantages are balanced by strong negatives. Anthropomorphic agent interfaces are viewed by some researchers as being impractical and inappropriate. Current speech recognition, natural language understanding, and learning capabilities of computers still fall far short of any human assistant. More specifically, it has been proposed that agent systems disempower users by clouding issues such as who is responsible for a system’s actions (Lanier, 1995). Others feel that user interfaces are more beneficial when they clearly reflect the commands available to a user and present the objects that a user can act upon (Shneiderman, 1997). Furthermore, critics argue that agent interfaces may mislead both users and designers, increase user anxiety, reduce user control, undermine user responsibility, and destroy a user’s sense of accomplishment (Shneiderman & Maes, 1997). Many current anthropomorphic or personified interfaces are viewed as being annoying, silly characters who hinder rather than enhance productivity (e.g., the Microsoft Paper Clip). Although strong opinions have been voiced on both sides of this issue, relatively little careful empirical research on anthropomorphic interfaces has been conducted, and the results from this research have been contradictory or equivocal (Cassell, 2000). Our goal is to develop a framework to systematically evaluate and understand the autonomous agent as a user interface paradigm. The present paper outlines the framework and an initial study that examines two issues within this framework. The first is whether the degree to which an interface agent is anthropomorphic has a measurable effect on users. Note that anthropomorphism is not a dichotomy but rather a continuum. One can think of interfaces with full fidelity video or 3D images of people to