Users’ Relational Ascriptions in User-Companion Interaction

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9733)

Abstract

In a qualitative study in the field of user-companion interaction (UCI), we figured out that users of a system, which was meant to represent a preliminary step towards future Companion-systems, tend to individually ascribe (mostly human-like) characteristics to the system in order to turn it into a potential relational partner. Users’ intrinsic motivation to establish and maintain a relationship with these individualized systems was found throughout the analyses and led us to the development of a concept called ‘users’ relational ascriptions’. In this paper, we present the empirical background of this concept and describe defining characteristics of relational ascriptions, reasons for their formation, factors that influence their content and quality as well as factors, which are influenced by the ascriptions. We sum up with a definition of relational ascriptions and discuss practical implications and future work.

Keywords

Companion-systems Users’ ascriptions Anthropomorphization User experience Mental models Qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The presented study is performed in the framework of the Transregional Collaborative Research Centre SFB/TRR 62 “A Companion-Technology for Cognitive Technical Systems” funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The responsibility for the content of this paper lies with the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Turkle, S.: Sociable technologies: enhancing human performance when the computer is not a tool but a companion. In: Roco, M.C., Bainbridge, W.S. (eds.) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, pp. 150–158. Springer, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Böhle, K., Bopp, K.: What a vision: the artificial companion. A piece of vision assessment including an expert survey. STI Stud. 10(1), 155–186 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilks, Y.: Artificial companions. Interdiscipl. Sci. Rev. 30(2), 145–152 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breazeal, C.: Designing Sociable Robots. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bickmore, T.W., Picard, R.W.: Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12(2), 293–327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wendemuth, A., Biundo, S.: A companion technology for cognitive technical systems. In: Esposito, A., Esposito, A.M., Vinciarelli, A., Hoffmann, R., Müller, V.C. (eds.) COST 2102. LNCS, vol. 7403, pp. 89–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pfadenhauer, M., Dukat, C.: Künstlich begleitet: Der Roboter als neuer bester Freund des Menschen? [Artificially accompanied: the robot as man’s new best friend? (in German)]. In: Grenz, T., Möll, G. (eds.) Unter Mediatisierungsdruck: Änderungen und Neuerungen in heterogenen Handlungsfeldern, pp. 189–210. Springer, Wiesbaden (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lange, J., Frommer, J.: Subjektives Erleben und intentionale Einstellung in Interviews zur Nutzer-Companion-Interaktion [Subjective experience and intentional stance in interveiws regarding user-companion interaction (in German)]. In: Heiß, H.-U., Pepper, P., Schlinghoff, H., Schneider, J. (eds.) Informatik 2011. LNI, vol. 192, p. 240. Köllen, Bonn (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norman, D.A.: Some observations on mental models. In: Gentner, D.A., Stevens, A.L. (eds.) Mental Models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Veer, G.C., Melguizo, M.D.C.P.: Mental models. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 52–80. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner, P., Sobolewska, E.: Mental models, magical thinking, and individual differences. Hum. Technol. 5(1), 90–113 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turkle, S.: Authenticity in the age of digital companions. Interact. Stud. 8(3), 501–517 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weizenbaum, J.: ELIZA – a computer programm for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM 9(1), 36–45 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krüger, J., Wahl, M., Frommer, J.: Making the system a relational partner: users’ ascriptions in individualization-focused interactions with companion-systems. In: Berntzen, L., Böhm, S. (eds.) CENTRIC 2015, The Eighth International Conference on Advances in Human-Oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services, pp. 48–54. IARIA XPS Press/s.l. (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rösner, D., Frommer, J., Friesen, R., Haase, M., Lange, J., Otto, M.: LAST MINUTE: a multimodal corpus of speech-based user-companion interactions. In: Calzolari, N., Declerck, T., Doğan, M.U., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Odijk, J., Piperidis, S. (eds.) LREC 2012, pp. 2559–2566. European Language Resources Association/s.l. (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dennett, D.C.: The Intentional Stance. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maslow, A.: A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50(4), 370–396 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krämer, N., Eimler, S., von der Pütten, A., Payr, S.: Theory of companions: what can theoretical models contribute to applications and understanding of human-robot interaction? Appl. Artif. Intell. 25(6), 474–502 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R.: The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117(3), 497–529 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C.: The case of KITT and data - from science fiction to reality? A social psychology perspective on artificial companions. STI Studies 10(1), 11–29 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56(1), 81–103 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harper, J.R.: Please do not lean on the computer. It has feelings too: the relationships transferred by humans to technology. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wollongong, Australia (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baldwin, M.W.: Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psych. Bull. 112(3), 461–484 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hassenzahl, M.: User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: IHM 2008 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine (IHM 2008), pp. 11–15. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karapanos, E.: Modeling Users’ Experiences with Interactive Systems. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frommer, J., Rennie, D.L.: Methodology, method, and quality of qualitative research. Psychother. Psych. Med. 56(5), 210–217 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Faculty, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and PsychotherapyOtto von Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations