Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Importance of Social Intimacy as a Sufficient Condition for Anthropomorphism and Positive User Experience

의인화와 긍정적인 사용자 경험의 충분조건으로서 사회적 친밀감의 중요성

  • Received : 2022.05.04
  • Accepted : 2022.06.14
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study seeks to clarify the mechanisms of anthropomorphism and positive user experience. This study adopts the "computers are social actors" (CASA) paradigm to verify the causal relationship between social response and anthropomorphism and correctly explicate this paradigm. The intimacy-forming and anthropomorphizing effects of deep self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships were replicated in relationships between humans and conversational agents to induce both social response and anthropomorphism. Then, the mediating effect of intimacy on the anthropomorphizing effect of deep self-disclosure was explored with psychological models that revealed the causal relationships between social connections, including intimacy and anthropomorphism. Furthermore, we explored how intimacy and anthropomorphism trigger positive user experiences. The results demonstrated that the deeper the self-disclosure depth was, the more intimate and humanly the agent was perceived and the more positive the user experience was. In addition, the effect of self-disclosure depth on anthropomorphism and positive user experience was completely mediated by intimacy. This means that when using a computer with interpersonal characteristics, people anthropomorphize it and have a positive experience because people react socially to objects with social cues. This study bridges the gap between the CASA paradigm and anthropomorphism research, suggesting the possibility of psychological explanations for the principle of human-computer interactions. In addition, it explicates the mechanism of anthropomorphism and positive user experience, emphasizing the importance of social response-that is, intimacy.

본 연구는 의인화와 긍정적인 사용자 경험의 기제를 밝히기 위해 수행되었다. 이때 CASA (Computers Are Social Actors) 패러다임 접근법을 차용해 사회적 반응과 의인화의 인과관계를 검증하고 이 패러다임에 대한 올바른 이해를 도모했다. 본 연구는 대인관계에서 나타나는 깊은 자기개방의 친밀감 형성 및 의인화 효과를 사람과 대화형에이전트의 관계에 적용해 사회적 반응과 의인화를 모두 유도했다. 그리고 친밀감으로 치환되는 사회적 연결감과 의인화의 인과관계를 밝히는 심리학 모델로 깊은 자기개방의 의인화 효과에 대한 친밀감의 매개효과를 탐색했다. 더 나아가 대인 특성이 적용된 에이전트 사용 경험이 긍정적으로 나타나는 데 친밀감과 의인화가 어떻게 관여하는지 탐구했다. 연구 결과, 자기개방 깊이가 깊을수록 에이전트가 더 친밀하고 사람답게 지각됐으며, 사용자 경험이 더 긍정적이었다. 그리고 자기개방 깊이가 의인화와 긍정적인 사용자 경험에 미치는 영향을 친밀감이 완전히 매개하였다. 사람이 사회적 단서를 가지는 대상에 사회적으로 반응하기 때문에 대인 특성이 반영된 컴퓨터를 의인화하고 긍정적으로 평가하는 것이다. 본 연구는 CASA 패러다임과 의인화 연구를 연결하며 인간 - 컴퓨터 상호작용에 대한 심리학적 설명 가능성을 시사한다. 그리고 의인화와 긍정적인 사용자 경험의 충분조건으로서 사회적 반응 즉, 친밀감의 중요성을 강조한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2019S1A5C2A03083499).

References

  1. Biocca, F., Burgoon, J., Harms, C., & Stoner, M. (2001). Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239665882
  2. Carpenter, A. & Greene, K. (2015). Social penetration theory. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, 1-4. DOI: 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic160
  3. Carr, S. J. & Dabbs Jr, J. M. (1974). The effects of lighting, distance and intimacy of topic on verbal and visual behavior. Sociometry, 592-600. DOI:10.2307/2786430
  4. Cortes, K. & Wood, J. V. (2019). How was your day? Conveying care, but under the radar, for people lower in trust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 11-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.003
  5. Dreyfus, E. A. (1967). The search for intimacy. Adolescence, 2(5), 25-40. DOI: 10.17210/jhsk.2006.11.1.2.35
  6. Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3-4), 177-190. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3
  7. Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19(2), 114-120. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x
  8. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864-886. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
  9. Finstad, K. (2010). The usability metric for user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 323-327. DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.004
  10. Forgas, J. P. (2011). Affective influences on selfdisclosure: Mood effects on the intimacy and reciprocity of disclosing personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 449-461. DOI: 10.1037/a0021129
  11. Giger, J. C., Picarra, N., Alves-Oliveira, P., Oliveira, R., & Arriaga, P. (2019). Humanization of robots: Is it really such a good idea?. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 111-123. DOI: 10.1002/hbe2.147
  12. Go, E. & Sundar, S. S. (2019). Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 304-316. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.020
  13. Goswami, U. E. (2002). Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development. Blackwell publishing. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470996652
  14. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
  15. Hinton, P., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2014). SPSS Explained (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  16. Hong, E. J., Cho, K. S., & Choi, J. H. (2017). Effects of anthropomorphic conversational interface for smart home : An experimental study on the voice and chatting interactions. Journal of the HCI Society of Korea, 12(1), 15-23. DOI: 10.17210/jhsk.2017.02.12.1.15
  17. Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., & Gino, F. (2017). It doesn't hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 430-452. DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000097
  18. IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
  19. Jung, S. G. (2019). The effect of anthropomorphism and personalization of fashion shopping chatbot on service acceptance intention (Doctoral Dissertation, Seoul University). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10371/151340
  20. Kim, Y. & Sundar, S. S. (2012). Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless?. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 241-250. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006
  21. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411-433. DOI: 10.1093/hcr/30.3.411
  22. Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238-1251. DOI: 10.1037/ 0022-3514.74.5.1238
  23. Lee, E. J. & Sung , Y. J. (2020). "Hey Kakao!": A qualitative study on the interaction between AI devices and its consumer. Journal of the Korean Psychological Association: Consumer and Advertising, 21(1), 21-53. DOI: 10.21074/kjlcap.2020.21.1.21
  24. Lee, S. M. (1994). Practice of factor analysis in Korean academic journals. The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(1), 1-27.
  25. Levitt, H. M., Minami, T., Greenspan, S. B., Puckett, J. A., Henretty, J. R., Reich, C. M., & Berman, J. S. (2016). How therapist self-disclosure relates to alliance and outcomes: A naturalistic study. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 7-28. DOI: 10.1080/09515070.2015.1090396
  26. Leyens, J. P., Demoulin, S., Vaes, J., Gaunt, R., & Paladino, M. P. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 139-172. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00006.x
  27. Mikulincer, M. & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 321-331. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.321
  28. Morton, T. L. (1978). Intimacy and reciprocity of exchange: A comparison of spouses and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(1), 72-81. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.72
  29. Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994, April). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 72-78). DOI: 10.1145/191666.191703
  30. Park, J. Y. (2006). Effects of self-disclosing agents. Journal of the HCI Society of Korea, 1(2), 35-42. DOI: 10.17210/jhsk.2006.11.1.2.35
  31. Park, J. Y. (2007). Effects of the interaction with computer agents on users' psychological experiences. Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 10(2), 155-168. Retrieved from https://kiss16-kstudy-com-ssl.access.yonsei.ac.kr:8443/kiss61/download_viewer.asp
  32. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (2001). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people (J. H. Kim & S. M Jo, Trans.), Seoul: Communication Books, (Original work publishced 2001).
  33. Samuels, P. (2017). Advice on exploratory factor analysis. Retrieved from http://bcu-test.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/6076
  34. Schaefer, M. T. & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7(1), 47-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x
  35. Sciutti, A., Mara, M., Tagliasco, V., & Sandini, G. (2018). Humanizing human-robot interaction: On the importance of mutual understanding. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 37(1), 22-29. DOI: 10.1109/MTS.2018.2795095
  36. Sinclair, V. G. & Dowdy, S. W. (2005). Development and validation of the emotional intimacy scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 13(3), 193-206. DOI: 10.1891/jnum.13.3.193
  37. Sundar, S. S., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Garga, A. (2008, October). A cognitive-heuristics approach to understanding presence in virtual environments. In PRESENCE 2008: Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Workshop on Presence (pp. 219-228). Padova, Italy: CLEUP Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Padova. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228831557
  38. Turing, A. M. (1950). Mind. Mind, 59(236), 433-460. DOI: 10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
  39. Urgen, B. A., Kutas, M., & Saygin, A. P. (2018). Uncanny valley as a window into predictive processing in the social brain. Neuropsychologia, 114, 181-185. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.027