Building character for artificial conversational agents: Ethos, ethics, believability, and credibility

PsychNology Journal

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 9-47

  Brahnam, Sheryl ^a  

^a MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anthropomorphism; Believability; Computer mediated communication; Conversational agents; Eliza effect; Ethos; Oscillation effect; Transference; Trust; Verbal abuse

Indexed keywords

EID: 69249239183     PISSN: 17207525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (114)

1. Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgements at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 387-395.
2. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Towards a history of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of behavior. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 32, 201-271.
3. Aristotle. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle: The revised oxford translation (J. Barnes (Ed.) (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Bailenson, J. N., Garland, P., Iyengar, S., & Yee, N. (2006). Transformed facial similarity as a political cue: A preliminary investigation. Political Psychology, 27(3), 373-385.
5. Balabanian, D. M. (1981). Medium vs. tedium: Video depositions come of age. Litigation, 7, 25-30.
6. Ball, G., & Breese, J. (2000). Emotion and personality in a conversational agent. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 189-219). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
7. Baumlin, J. S. (1994). Introduction. In J. S. Baumlin & T. F. Baumlin (Eds.), Ethos: New essays in rhetorical and critical theory (pp. xi-xxvii). Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.
8. Baumlin, J. S., & Baumlin, T. F. (1994). On the psychology of the pisteis: Mapping the terrains of mind and rhetoric. In J. S. Baumlin & T. F. Baumlin (Eds.), Ethos: New essays in rhetorical and critical theory (pp. 91-112). Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.
9. Beverly, R. E., & Young, T. J. (1978). The effect of mediated camera angle on receiver evaluations of source credibility, dominance, attraction and homophily. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
10. Bickmore, T., & Cassell, J. (2001). Relational agents: A model and implementation of building user trust. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA.
11. Boyd, D. (2002). Faceted id/entity: Managing representation in a digital world. Unpublished master's thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
12. Brahnam, S. (2004). Modeling the physical personality of the face for ECA selfpresentation and interaction with users and the relation of physical personality to emotion. Paper presented at the AAMAS workshop entitled Embodied Conversational Agents: Balanced Perception and Action in ECAs, New York City.
13. Brahnam, S. (2005). Strategies for handling customer abuse of ECAs. Paper presented at the Interact workshop on Abuse: The Darker Side of Human-Computer Interaction, Rome, Italy.
14. Brahnam, S. (2006a). Gendered bods and bot abuse. Paper presented at the Misuse and Abuse of Interactive Technologies, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
15. Brahnam, S. (2006b). The impossibility of collaborating with Kathy: 'The stupid bitch'. M/C Journal, 9(2).
16. Brahnam, S. (2008). Failure to thrive: Value scenarios with in the framework of wellbeing and flourishing. Paper presented at the CHI 2008 workshop on Values, Value and Worth: Their Relationship to HCI?, Florence, Italy.
17. Brooke, R. (1987). Lacan, transference, and writing instruction. College English, 49(6), 679-691.
18. Burgoon, J., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez Jr., A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 657-677.
19. Campbell, P. (1995). Ethos: Character and ethics in technical writing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 38(3), 132-138.
20. Caporael, L. R. (1986). Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 215-234.
21. Caporael, L. R., Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., & van de Kragt, A. J. C. (1989). Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 683-739.
22. Caporael, L. R., & Heyes, C. M. (1977). Why anthropomorphize? Folk psychology and other stories. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp. 59-73). Albany: State University of New York Press.
23. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (Eds.). (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24. Castelfranchi, C. (1998). Modelling social action for ai agents. Artificial Intelligence, 103(1-2), 157-182.
25. Chamberlain, C. (1984). From haunts to character: The meaning of ethos and its relation to ethics. Helios, 11, 97-108.
26. Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to face-toface and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Applied Psychology, 88(5), 944-953.
27. Corder, J. W. (1989). Hunting for ethos where they say it can't be found. Rhetoric Review, 7(2), 299-316.
28. Davis, H. (1997). Animal cognition versus animal thinking: The antropomorphic error. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp. 335-347). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
29. De Angeli, A., & Brahnam, S. (2006-May). Sex stereotypes and conversational agents. Paper presented at the AVI 2006 workshop Gender and Interaction: Real and Virtual Women in a Male World, Venice, Italy.
30. De Angeli, A., & Brahnam, S. (2008). I hate you: Disinhibition with virtual partners. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 302-310.
31. De Angeli, A., & Carpenter, R. (2005). Stupid computer! Abuse and social identity. Paper presented at the Interact 2005 workshop entitled Abuse: The Dark Side of Human-Computer Interaction, Rome.
32. de Rosis, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (1999). A contribution to cognitive modeling of affective phenomena. 2002, Retrieved from http://www.ai.mit.edu/ people/jvelas /ebaa99/ derosis-ebaa99.pdf
33. DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, London.
34. Derrida, J. (1987). Du tout (A. Bass, Trans.). In The post card: From Socrates to Freud and beyond. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
35. Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In P. Kollock & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 27-58). London: Routledge.
36. Epley, N., & Kruger, J. (2005). When what you type isn't what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and experiences over e-mail. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 414-422.
37. Farrell, T. B. (1993). Norms of rhetorical culture New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38. Ferris, S. P., & Montgomery, M. (1996). The new orality: Oral characteristics of computer-mediated communication. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 4(1), 55-60.
39. Fischer, K. (2006). What computer talk is and isn't: Human-computer conversation as intercultural communication. Saarbrücken: AQ-Verlag.
40. Fisher, J. A. (1990). The myth of anthropomorphism. San Francisco and Oxford: Westview Press.
41. Foner, L. (1993). What's an agent, anyway? A sociological case study (Agents Memo No. 93-01). Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
42. Freud, S. (1912). The dynamics of transference. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
43. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2).
44. Gill, C. (1982). The ethos/pathos distinction in rhetorical and literary criticism. The Classical Quarterly, 34(1), 149-166.
45. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
46. Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
47. Havelock, E. (1982). Preface to Plato (history of the greek mind). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
48. Heim, M. (1993). The metaphysics of virtual reality. New York: Oxford University Press.
49. Hemsley, G. D., & Doob, A. N. (1976). The effect of looking behavior on perceptions of a communicator's credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8(2), 136-142.
50. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. A. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 611-621). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
51. Hilton, J. L., & Fein, S. (1989). The role of typical diagnosticity in stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 201-211.
52. Holland, N. N. (2006). The willing suspension of disbelief: A neuro-psychoanalytic view. PsyArt: A Hyperlink Journal for the Psychological Study of the Arts, 2006,.
53. Holloran, M. (1982). Aristotle's concept of ethos, or if not his somebody else's. Rhetoric Review, 1(1), 58-63.
54. Huang, W., Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2002). Camera angle affects dominance in video-mediated communication. Paper presented at the Conference On Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
55. Hunt, D. (1991). Riverside guide to writing. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
56. Isocrates. (2000). Antidosis. In G. Norlin (Ed.), On the peace. Areopagiticus. Against the sophists. Antidosis. Panathenaicus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57. Jung, C. (1959). Psyche and symbol: A selection from the writings of C. G. Jung. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
58. Kopp, S. (2006). How people talk to a virtual human-conversations from a real-world application. Paper presented at the Workshop Hansewissenschaftskolleg, Delmenhorst, Germany.
59. Lang, R. D. (1960). The divided self: An existential study in sanity and madness. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.
60. Lanham, R. A. (1976). The motives of eloquence: Literary rhetoric in the renaissance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
61. Lassiter, G. D. (2002). Videotaped interrogations and confessions: A simple change in camera perspective alter verdict in simulated trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 858-866.
62. Leonard, A. (1997). Bots: The origin of a new species. New York: Penguin.
63. Liu, Z., & Cohen, M. (2005). Head-size equalization for better visual perception of video conferencing. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
64. Locke, J. (2009). Staging the virtual courtroom: An argument for standardizing camera angles in Canadian criminal courts. Masks: The Online Journal of Law and Theatre 1, 36-58.
65. Loyall, A. B., & Bates, J. (1997). Personality-rich believable agents that use language. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Marina del Rey, CA.
66. Mauldin, M. L. (1994). Chatterbots, tinymuds, and the turing test: Entering the loebner prize competition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of AAAI '94 Conference, Seattle.
67. McCain, T. A., & Wakshlag, J. J. (1974). The effect of camera angle and image size on source credibility and interpersonal attraction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association New Orleans, LA.
68. McGinniss, J. (1969). The Selling of the President. New York: Trident Press.
69. Miller, A. B. (1974). Aristotle on habit(ηθος) and characterθος): Implications for the rhetoric. Speech Monographs, 74(4), 309-316.
70. Miller, C. R. (2002). Writing in a culture of simulation: Ethos online. In P. Coppock (Ed.), The Semiotics of writing: Transdiciplinary perspective on the technology of writing (pp. 253-279). Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers.
71. Miller, C. R. (2004). Expertise and agency: Transformations of ethos in humancomputer interaction. In M. J. Hyde (Ed.), The ethos of rhetoric (pp. 197-218). Columbia, SC: University of Southern Carolina Press.
72. Nathan, L. P., Klasnja, P. V., & Friedman, B. (2007). Value scenarios: A technique for envisioning systemic effects of new technologies. Paper presented at the CHI 2007 Works in Progress, San Jose, CA.
73. Olson, D. R. (1980). On the language and authority of textbooks. The Journal of Communication, 30(1), 186-196.
74. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.
75. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
76. Plato. (1997). Plato: Complete works (J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
77. Plimpton, G. (Ed.). (1977). Writer's at work: The 'paris review' interviews (Vol. 4). London: Secker and Warburg.
78. Poster, M. (2001). What's the matter with the internet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
79. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press.
80. Rehm, R. (2008). "She is just stupid"--Analyzing user-agent interactions in emotional game situations. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 326-333.
81. Reynolds, N. (1993). Ethos as location: New sites for understanding discursive authority Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 325-338.
82. Ruzich, C. M. (2008). Our deepest sympathy: An essay on computer crashes, grief, and loss Interaction Studies, 9(3), 504-517.
83. Saarinen. (2001). Chatterbots crash test dummies of communication. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland.
84. Seabrook, J. (1994). My first flame. The New Yorker, 70, 70-99.
85. Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
86. Sengers, P. (2002). Schizophrenia and narrative in artificial agents. Leonardo, 35(4), 427-431.
87. Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2007). Artificial intelligence and natural magic Artificial Intelligence Review, 25(1-2), 9-19.
88. Sharp, G. (1996). The autonomous mass killer. Areana Journal, 6, 1-7.
89. Shechtman, N., & Horowitz, L. M. (2003). Media inequality in conversation: How people behave differently when interacting with computers and people. Paper presented at the CHI'03, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
90. Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective humancomputer interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
91. Shneiderman, B., & Maes, P. (1997). Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interactions, 4(6), 42-61.
92. Spada, E. C. (1997). Amorphism. mechanomorphism, and anthropomorphism. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (pp. 37-49). Albany: State University of New York Press.
93. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPaychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
94. Suler, J. (2009). Psychology of cyberspace. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://www.enotalone.com/article/2454.html
95. Tiemens, R. K. (1970). Some relationships of camera angle to communicator credibility. Journal of Broadcasting, 14(4), 483-489.
96. Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44.
97. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433-460.
98. Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen. New York: Touchstone.
99. Van Gelder, L. (1985). The strange case of the electronic lover. Ms. Magazine, October, 98-124.
100. 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.
101. Vogel, A. (1973). Body theology: God's presence in man's world. New York: Harper.
102. Wallace, P. (1999). The psychology of the internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
103. Walther, J. B. (1992). A longitudinal experiment on relational tone in computermediated and face to face interaction. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences.
104. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
105. Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538-2557.
106. Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21, 60-487.
107. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computermediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
108. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
109. Welch, K. E. (1990). The contemporary reception of classical rhetoric: Appropriations of ancient discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
110. Whittaker, S. (2003). Theories and methods in mediated communication. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 243-286). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
111. Wisse, J. (1989). Ethos and pathos from Aristotle to Cicero. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
112. 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. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA.
113. Yoos, G. E. (1979). A revision of the concept of ethical appeal. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 12(1), 41-58.
114. Zdenek, S. (2003). Artificial intelligence as a discursive practice: The case of embodied software agent systems. AI & Society, 17(3-4), 340-363.