One for All or One for One? The Influence of Cultural Dimensions in Virtual Agents’ Behaviour
With the increase in the development of autonomous agents, there is a bigger demand on their capability of interacting with other agents and users in ways that are natural and inspired by how humans interact. However, cultural aspects have been largely neglected so far, even though they are a crucial aspect of human societies. Our goal is to create an architecture able to model cultural groups of agents with perceivable distinct behaviour. In particular, this paper focus on how to use two cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede in order to influence the agent’s goal selection and appraisal processes. Using our cultural architecture, we created two cultural groups of agents and asked users to visualise them performing a short emergent story. We then asked them to describe the two groups visualised. Results confirmed that users did perceived differences in the groups, and those differences were congruent with the cultural parametrisation used.
KeywordsCultural Dimension Power Distance Appraisal Process Virtual Agent Agent Architecture
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aylett, R., Paiva, A., Vannini, N., Enz, S., Andre, E., Hall, L.: But that was in another country: agents and intercultural empathy. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, Budapest, Hungary, May 2009, IFAMAAS/ACM DL (2009)Google Scholar
- 3.Dias, J.: Fearnot!: Creating emotional autonomous synthetic characters for empathic interactions. Master’s thesis, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa (2005)Google Scholar
- 5.Dorner, D.: The mathematics of emotions. In: Prooceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, Bamberg, Germany, pp. 75–79 (2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Hofstede, G.: Culture Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Intitutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2001)Google Scholar
- 7.Johnson, W.L., Beal, C.R., Fowles-Winkler, A., Lauper, U., Marsella, S.C., Narayanan, S., Papachristou, D., Vilhjálmsson, H.H.: Tactical language training system: An interim report. In: Lester, J.C., Vicari, R.M., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3220, pp. 336–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kroeber, A., Kluckhohn, C.: Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Peabody Museum, Cambridge (1952)Google Scholar
- 9.Lee, E., Nass, C.: Does the ethnicity of a computer agent matter? an experimental comparison of human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication. In: Emobied Conversational Agents (1998)Google Scholar
- 10.Maldonado, H., Hayes-Roth, B.: Toward cross-cultural believability in character design. In: Payr, S., Trappl, R. (eds.) Agent Culture: Human-Agent Interaction in a Multicultural World, pp. 143–175. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London (2004)Google Scholar
- 12.Mascarenhas, S., Dias, J., Afonso, N., Enz, S., Paiva, A.: Using rituals to express cultural differences in synthetic characters. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, Budapest, Hungary, May 2009, IFAMAAS/ACM DL (2009)Google Scholar
- 16.Pynadath, D.V., Marsella, S.: Psychsim: Modeling theory of mind with decision-theoretic agents. In: IJCAI, pp. 1181–1186 (2005)Google Scholar
- 18.Roseman, I., Smith, C.: Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
- 20.Solomon, S., van Lent, M., Core, M., Carpenter, P., Rosenberg, M.: A language for modeling cultural norms, biases and stereotypes for human behavior models. In: BRIMS (2008)Google Scholar