Are interface agents scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human-agent interaction

Interacting with Computers

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 293-303

  Serenko, Alexander ^a  

^a LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attribution theory; Human agent interaction; Interface agents; Self serving bias

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; COMPUTER SYSTEMS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

ATTRIBUTION THEORY; HUMAN-AGENT INTERACTION; INTERFACE AGENTS; SELF-SERVING BIAS;

INTELLIGENT AGENTS;

EID: 33846522303     PISSN: 09535438     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2006.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Ball, G., Ling, D., Kurlander, D., Miller, J., Pugh, D., Skelly, T., Stankosky, A., Thiel, D., Dantzich, M.V., Wax, T., 1997. Lifelike computer characters: the Persona project at Microsoft Research. In: Bradshaw, J.M. (Ed.), Software Agents. The AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 191-222.
2. Blackwood N.J., Bentall R.P., Ffytche D.H., Simmons A., Murray R.M., and Howard R.J. Self-responsibility and the self-serving bias: an fMRI investigation of causal attributions. NeuroImage 20 2 (2003) 1076-1085
3. Campbell W.K., Sedikides C., Reeder G.D., and Elliot A.J. Among friends? An examination of friendship and the self-serving bias. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39 2 (2000) 229-239
4. Constant D., Kiesler S., and Sproull L. What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Inf. Syst. Res. 5 4 (1994) 400-421
5. Creswell J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2003), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
6. Detlor B. Towards Knowledge Portals: From Human Issues to Intelligent Agents (2004), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
7. Farmer A., and Pecorino P. Pretrial bargaining with self-serving bias and asymmetric information. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 48 2 (2002) 163-176
8. Friedman, B., 1995. 'It's the computer's fault': reasoning about computers as moral agents. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colorado. The ACM Press, New York.
9. In: Friedman B. (Ed). Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology (1997), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
10. Gadhoum Y. Potential effects of managers' entrenchment and shareholdings on competitiveness. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 118 2 (1999) 332-349
11. Gattiker U.E., and Kelley H. Morality and computers: attitudes and differences in judgments. Inf. Syst. Res. 10 3 (1999) 233-254
12. Harrington S.J. The anomaly of other-directedness: when normally ethical I.S. personnel are unethical. Comput. Pers. 16 2 (1995) 3-11
13. Harrington S.J. The effect of codes of ethics and personal denial of responsibility on computer abuse judgments and intentions. MIS Q. 20 3 (1996) 257-278
14. Heider F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1958), Wiley, New York
15. Jarvenpaa S.L., and Staples S. The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 9 2-3 (2000) 129-154
16. Jick T.D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm. Sci. Q. 24 4 (1979) 602-611
17. Johnson W.L., Rickel J.W., and Lester J. Animated pedagogical agents: face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 11 (2000) 47-78
18. Jones, E.E., Davis, K., 1965. From acts to dispositions: the attribution process in person perception. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York, vol. 2, pp. 219-266.
19. Keeble R.J., and Macredie R.D. Assistant agents for the world wide web intelligent interface design challenges. Interact. Comput. 12 4 (2000) 357-381
20. Kelly, H.H., 1972. Attribution in social interaction. In: Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Nelly, H.H., et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, pp. 1-27.
21. In: Kling R. (Ed). Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (1996), Academic Press, San Diego
22. Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (1980), Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA
23. Lashkari, Y., Metral, M., Maes, P., 1994. Collaborative interface agents. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA.
24. Lee F., and Robinson R. An attributional analysis of social accounts: implications of playing the blame game. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30 9 (2000) 1853-1879
25. Lee F., and Tiedens L.Z. Who's being served? 'Self-Serving' attributions in social hierarchies. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 84 2 (2001) 254-287
26. Lester, J.C., Converse, S.A., Kahler, S.E., Barlow, S.T., Stone, B.A., Bhoga, R.S., 1997. The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia. The ACM Press, New York.
27. Lieberman, H., 1995. Letizia: an agent that assists Web browsing. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada.
28. Lieberman, H., 2001. Interfaces that give and take advice. In: Carroll, J.M. (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium. The ACM Press, New York, pp. 475-484.
29. Lieberman H., Rosenzweig E., and Singh P. Aria: an agent for annotating and retrieving images. IEEE Comput. 34 7 (2001) 57-62
30. Lieberman, H., Selker, T., 2003. Agents for the user interface. In: Bradshaw, J.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Agent Technology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
31. Maes P. Agents that reduce work and information overload. Commun. ACM 37 7 (1994) 31-40
32. Maes P. Artificial life meets entertainment: lifelike autonomous agents. Commun. ACM 38 11 (1995) 108-114
33. Maes, P., Kozierok, R., 1993. Learning interface agents. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
34. Magid, L.J., 2001. Office XP - Easier to Use - No Wacky Paper Clip. Los Angeles Times. Available at http://www.pcanswer.com/articles/lat_officexp.htm. Retrieved December 10, 2003.
35. Miller D.T., and Ross M. Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: facts or fiction?. Psychol. Bull. 82 2 (1975) 213-225
36. Moon Y. Don't blame the computer: when self-disclosure moderates the self-serving bias. J. Consum. Psychol. 13 1-2 (2003) 125-137
37. Moon Y., and Nass C. Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human-computer interaction. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 49 1 (1998) 79-94
38. Nass C. Etiquette equality: exhibitions and expectations of computer politeness. Commun. ACM 47 4 (2004) 35-37
39. Nass C., Fogg B.J., and Moon Y. Can computers be teammates?. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 45 6 (1996) 669-678
40. Nass C., and Moon Y. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Iss. 56 1 (2000) 81-103
41. Nass C., Steuer J., Henriksen L., and Dryer D.C. Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: performance assessments of computers subsequent to 'self-' or 'other-' evaluations. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 40 3 (1994) 543-559
42. Person, N.K., Craig, C., Price, P., Hu, X., Gholson, B., Greasser, A.C., 2000. Incorporating human-like conversational behaviors into AutoTutor. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Achieving Human-like Behavior in the Interactive Animated Agents at the Agents 2000 Conference, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. The ACM Press, New York.
43. Peterson C., Semmel A., von Baeyer C., Abramson L.Y., Metalsky G.I., and Seligman M.E.P. The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cogn. Ther. Res. 6 3 (1982) 287-300
44. Peterson D.K., Kim C., Kim J.H., and Tamura T. The perceptions of information systems designers from the United States, Japan, and Korea on success and failure factors. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 22 6 (2002) 421-439
45. Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B., Lee J.-Y., and Podsakoff N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 5 (2003) 879-903
46. Podsakoff P.M., and Organ D.W. Self-report in organizational research: problems and prospects. J. Manage. 12 4 (1986) 531-544
47. Postman N. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992), Alfred A. Knopf, New York
48. Proudfoot J.G., Corr P.J., Guest D.E., and Gray J.A. The development and evaluation of a scale to measure occupational attributional style in the financial services sector. Pers. Individ. Differences 30 2 (2001) 259-270
49. Reeves, B., Nass, C., 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Televisions, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
50. Roch S.G., Lane J.A.S., Samuelson C.D., Allison S.T., and Dent J.L. Cognitive load and the equality heuristic: a two-stage model of resource overconsumption in small groups. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 83 2 (2000) 185-212
51. Rohner R.P. Advantages of the comparative method of anthropology. Behavior Science Research 12 (1977) 117-144
52. Ruvini, J.-D., Gabriel, J.-M., 2002. Do users tolerate errors from their assistant? Experiments with an E-mail classifier. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Francisco, CA.
53. Schwenk C. Management tenure and explanations for success and failure. Omega 21 4 (1993) 449-456
54. Serenko A. The importance of interface agent characteristics from the end-user perspective. Int. J. Intell. Inf. Technol. 2 2 (2006) 48-59
55. Serenko, A., 2006b. The use of interface agents for email notification in critical incidents. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.06.004.
56. Serenko A. The development of an instrument to measure the degree of animation predisposition of agent users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23 1 (2007) 478-495
57. Serenko A., and Detlor B. Intelligent agents as innovations. AI Soc. 18 4 (2004) 364-381
58. Shneiderman B., and Maes P. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interactions 4 6 (1997) 42-61
59. Straub D.W. Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Q. 13 2 (1989) 147-169
60. Tennen H., and Affleck G. Blaming others for threatening events. Psychol. Bull. 108 2 (1990) 209-232
61. Trott, B., 1998. Microsoft's paper-clip assistant killed in Denver, CNN News. Available online at www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9810/16/clipdeath.idg. Retrieved December 3, 2003.
62. Wadley V.G., and Haley W.E. Diagnostic attributions versus labeling: impact of Alzheimer's disease and major depression diagnoses on emotions, beliefs, and helping intentions of family members. J. Gerontol. Psychol. Sci. 56B 4 (2001) 244-252
63. Weiner B. A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of helping behavior: an analysis of judgments of help giving. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39 (1980) 186-200
64. Weiner B., Amirkhan J., Folkes V., and Verette J. An attributional analysis of excuse giving: studies of a nai{dotless}̈ve theory of emotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52 2 (1987) 316-324
65. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., Rosenbaum, R.M., 1972. Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In: Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Nelly, H.H., et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, pp. 95-120.
66. Zeelenberg M., van der Pligt J., and de Vries N.K. Attributions of responsibility and affective reactions to decision outcomes. Acta Psychol. 104 3 (2000) 303-315
67. Zeelenberg M., van Dijk W.W., van der Pligt J., Manstead A.S.R., van Empelen P., and Reinderman D. Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions: the role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 75 2 (1998) 117-141