Browse > Article

Expectation and Expectation Gap towards intelligent properties of AI-based Conversational Agent  

Park, Hyunah (서울대학교 언론정보학과)
Tae, Moonyoung (서울대학교 언론정보학과)
Huh, Youngjin (서울대학교 인지과학 협동과정)
Lee, Joonhwan (서울대학교 언론정보학과)
Publication Information
Journal of the HCI Society of Korea / v.14, no.1, 2019 , pp. 15-22 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the users' expectation and expectation gap about the attributes of smart speaker as an intelligent agent, ie autonomy, sociality, responsiveness, activeness, time continuity, goal orientation. To this end, semi-structured interviews were conducted for smart speaker users and analyzed based on ground theory. Result has shown that people have huge expectation gap about the sociality and human-likeness of smart speakers, due to limitations in technology. The responsiveness of smart speakers was found to have positive expectation gap. For the memory of time-sequential information, there was an ambivalent expectation gap depending on the degree of information sensitivity and presentation method. We also found that there was a low expectation level for autonomous aspects of smart speakers. In addition, proactive aspects were preferred only when appropriate for the context. This study presents implications for designing a way to interact with smart speakers and managing expectations.
Keywords
Conversational Agents; Artificial intelligence; Intelligent agent; expectation; expectation gap;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Arras, K. O. and Cerqui, D. Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000-people survey. Technical Report Nr. 0605-001. Autonomous Systems Lab Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. 2005.
2 Olson, C. and Levy, J. Transforming marketing with artificial intelligence. Applied Marketing Analytics. 3(4). Henry Stewart Publications. pp. 291-297. 2018.
3 Russell, S. N. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1994.
4 Shin, D. H. and Choo, H. Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics: Social presence in human-robot interaction. Interaction Studies. 12(3). John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 430-460. 2011.   DOI
5 Lohse, M. The role of expectations in HRI. In Dautenhahn, K. and Saunders, J. (Ed.) New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (1st ed). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 35-56. 2009.
6 Shin, D. and Hwang, Y. Integrated acceptance and sustainability evaluation of Internet of Medical Things: A dual-level analysis. Internet Research, 27(5). Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 1227-1254. 2017.   DOI
7 Luger, E. and Sellen, A. Like having a really bad PA: the gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 5286-5297. 2016.
8 Moore, R. K. Is spoken language all-or-nothing? Implications for future speech-based human-machine interaction. In Jokinen, K. and Wilcock, G. (Ed.) Dialogues with Social Robots. Singapore: Springer. pp. 281-291. 2017.
9 Lange, D. B. and Oshima, M. Seven good reasons for mobile agents. Communications of the ACM. 42(3). ACM. pp. 88-89. 1999.   DOI
10 Komatsu, T., Kurosawa, R. and Yamada, S. How does the difference between users' expectations and perceptions about a robotic agent affect their behavior?. International Journal of Social Robotics. 4(2). Springer Verlag. pp. 109-116. 2012.   DOI
11 Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. Scripts, goals, plans, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum. 1977.
12 Khan, Z. Attitudes towards intelligent service robots. NADA KTH, Stockholm, 17. 1998.
13 Shin, D. and Biocca, F. Exploring immersive experience in journalism. New Media & Society. 20(8). Sage journals. pp. 2800-2823. 2017.
14 Kriz, S., Ferro, T. D., Damera, P. and Porter, J. R. Fictional robots as a data source in hri research: Exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations. In Proceedings of 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE. pp. 458-463. 2010.
15 Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R. and Westerman, D. Initial interaction expectations with robots: Testing the human-to-human interaction script. Communication Studies. 67(2). Taylor & Francis Online. pp. 227-238. 2016.   DOI
16 Ray, C., Mondada, F. and Siegwart, R. What do people expect from robots?. In Proceedings of 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE. pp. 3816-3821. 2008.
17 Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L. and Werry, I. What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler?. In Proceedings of 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE. pp. 1192-1197. 2005.
18 Paepcke, S. and Takayama, L. Judging a bot by its cover: an experiment on expectation setting for personal robots. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. IEEE. pp. 45-52. 2010.
19 Kwon, M., Jung, M. F. and Knepper, R. A. Human expectations of social robots. In Proceedings of 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. IEEE. pp. 463-464. 2016.
20 Cha, E., Dragan, A. D. and Srinivasa, S. S. Perceived robot capability. In Proceedings of 24th Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE. pp. 541-548. 2015.
21 Zlotowski, J., Yogeeswaran, K. and Bartneck, C. Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 100. Elsevier. pp. 48-54. 2017.   DOI
22 Oh, H., Kwak, S. S. and Kim, M. S. Application of unexpectedness to the behavioral design of an entertainment robot. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. IEEE. pp. 119-120. 2010.
23 Fast, E. and Horvitz, E. Long-Term Trends in the Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI. pp. 963-969. 2017.
24 Oh, C., Lee, T., Kim, Y., Park, S. and Suh, B. Us vs. Them: Understanding Artificial Intelligence Technophobia over the Google DeepMind Challenge Match. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 2523-2534. 2017.
25 Neff, G. and Nagy, P. Automation, algorithms, andpolitics| talking to bots: symbiotic agency and the caseof tay. International Journal of Communication. 10(17).USC Annenberg School of Communication andJournalism. pp. 4915-4931. 2016.
26 Purington, A., Taft, J. G., Sannon, S., Bazarova, N. N. and Taylor, S. H. Alexa is my new BFF: social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the amazon echo. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 2853-2859. 2017.
27 Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. 2009.
28 Funakoshi, K., Nakano, M., Kobayashi, K., Komatsu, T. and Yamada, S. Non-humanlike spoken dialogue: a design perspective. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 176-184. 2010.
29 Klopfenstein, L. C., Delpriori, S., Malatini, S. and Bogliolo, A. The rise of bots: a survey of conversational interfaces, patterns, and paradigms. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM. pp. 555-565. 2017.
30 Balentine, B. It's Better to Be a Good Machine Than a Bad Person: Speech Recognition and Other Exotic User Interfaces at the Twilight of the Jetsonian Age. Annapolis: ICMI Press. 2007.
31 Lopatovska, I. and Williams, H. Personification of the Amazon Alexa: BFF or a Mindless Companion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. ACM. pp. 265-268. 2018.