Ethical implications of verbal disinhibition with conversational agents

PsychNology Journal

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 49-57

  De Angeli, Antonella ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Embodied conversational agents; Internet disinhibition; Verbal abuse

Indexed keywords

EID: 69249238130     PISSN: 17207525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Abbattista, F., Catucci, G., Semeraro, G., Zambetta, F. (2004). SAMIR: A Smart 3D Assistant on the Web. PsychNology Journal, 2(1), 43-60.
2. Berry, D. C., Butler, L. T., & de Rosis, F. (2005). Evaluating a realistic agent in an advice-giving task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(3), 304-327.
3. Bickmore, T. W., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(2), 293-327.
4. Brahnam, S. (2006). Gendered bods and bot abuse. In A. De Angeli, S. Brahnam, P. Wallis, A. Dix (Eds.), Proceedings of the CHI 2006 Workshop: Misuse and abuse of interactive technologies, (pp. 13-16). Retrieved on October, 3 2009, from agentabuse. org/CHI2006Abuse2. pdf.
5. Brahnam, S., & De Angeli, A. (2008). Editorial: Special issue on the abuse and misuse of social agents. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 287-291.
6. Cassell, J. (2000). Embodied conversational interface agents. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 70-78.
7. Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjalmsson, H., & Yan, H. (2001). More than just a pretty face: conversational protocols and the affordances of embodiment. Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(1-2), 55-64.
8. De Angeli, A., & Brahnam, S. (2006-May). Sex stereotypes and conversational agents. Paper presented at the AVI 2006 workshop on Gender and interaction: Real and virtual women in a male world. Retrieved on October 3 2009, from: www.informatics.man.ac.uk/~antonella/gender/papers.htm.
9. De Angeli, A., & Brahnam, S. (2008). I hate you! Disinhibition with virtual partners. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 302-310.
10. De Angeli, A., Brahman, S., & Wallis, P. (2005). Proceedings of Abuse: The darker side of human-computer interaction, Workshop at Interact 2005. Retrieved on October 3, 2009 from agentabuse. org/Abuse_Workshop_WS5. pdf.
11. De Angeli, A., Gerbino, W., Cassano, G., & Petrelli, D. (2000-June). From tools to friends: Where is the borderline? Presented at Proceedings of the UM'99 Workshop on Attitude, Personality and Emotions in User-Adapted Interaction.
12. Dix, A. (2008). Response to "Sometimes it's hard to be a robot: A call for action on the ethics of abusing artificial agents". Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 334-337.
13. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14. Freier, N. G. (2008). Children attribute moral standing to a personified agent. Proceeding of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems CHI 2008 (pp 343-352). New York: ACM Press.
15. Johnson, D. G. (1997). Ethics online. Communications of the ACM, 40(1), 60-65.
16. Khan, R., & De Angeli, A. (2009-August). The attractiveness stereotype in the evaluation of embodied conversational agents. Presented at Interact 2009,.
17. Lester, J.C., Converse, S.A., Kahler, S.E., Barlow, S.T., Stone, B.A., & Bhogal, R.S. (1997). The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Proceeding of CHI97: Human factors in computing systems (pp. 359-366). New York: ACM Press.
18. Maner, W. (1996). Unique ethical problems in information technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(2), 137-154.
19. Marakas, G. M., Johnson, R. D., & Palmer, J. W. (2000). A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: when the metaphor becomes the model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(4), 719-750.
20. Moreno, K. N., Klettke, B., Nibbaragandla, K., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). Perceived characteristics and pedagogical efficacy of animated conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2363, (pp. 963-971), Berlin: Springer Verlag.
21. Nass, C., Isbister, K., & Lee, E.J. (2000). Truth is beauty: Researching embodied conversational agents. In J. Cassell, Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents (pp. 374-402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Rehm, M. (2008). "She is just stupid"--Analyzing user-agent interactions in emotional game situations. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 311-325.
24. Tavani, H. T. (2002). The uniqueness debate in computer ethics: What exactly is at issue, and why does it matter? Ethics and Information Technology, 4(1), 37-54.
25. Thimbleby, H. (2008). Robot ethics? Not yet: A reflection on Whitby's "Sometimes it's hard to be a robot". Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 338-341.
26. Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Doering, A. (2008). When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescents and a female pedagogical agent. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 292-301.
27. Whitby, B. (2008). Sometimes it's hard to be a robot: A call for action on the ethics of abusing artificial agents. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 326-333.
28. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Rickertsen, K. (2007). A meta-Analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. In Proceeding of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems CHI 2007 (pp. 1-10), New York: ACM Press.
29. Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., & Hodges, L. (2006). Can a virtual cat persuade you?: the role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness. In Proceeding of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems CHI 2006 (pp. 1153-1162), New York: ACM Press.