Re/Framing Virtual Conversational Partners: A Feminist Critique and Tentative Move Towards a New Design Paradigm

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9187)

Abstract

A major research agenda in HCI is the development of believable agents. Because believability has become linked to gendered personification, designers have relied on stereotypes for both the physical rendering and verbal responses of these agents. Conversational agents are even scripted to handle “abuse” in stereotypical ways. Such scripting, however, often escalates the abuse. While the demand for anthropomorphized agents may necessitate a reliance on bodily stereotypes, the verbal responses of the agents need not be scripted according to gendered expectations. We explore the design of conversational agents as a rhetorical enterprise that can deconstruct overtly gendered patterns of interaction.

Keywords

Feminist HCI Embodied conversational agents Agent abuse Rhetoric Ethos Anthropomorphism Personified interface 

References

  1. 1.
    Aristotle: Rhetoric. In: Barnes, J. (ed.) The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2, pp. 2152–2269. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bickmore, T., Puskar, K., Schlenk, E., Pfeifer, L.S., Erika, S.: Maintaining reality: relational agents for antipsychotic medication adherence. Interact. Comput. 22(4), 276–288 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brahnam, S.: Building character for artificial conversational agents: ethos, ethics, believability, and credibility. PsychNology J. 7(1), 9–47 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brahnam, S.: Gendered bods and bot abuse. In: CHI 2006 workshop Misuse and Abuse of Interactive Technologies. Montréal, Québec (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brahnam, S.: Strategies for handling customer abuse of Ecas. In: Interact Workshop On Abuse: The Darker Side of Human-Computer Interaction. Rome, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brahnam, S., De Angeli, A.: Gender affordances of conversational agents. Interact. Comput. 24(3), 139–153 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brahnam, S., De Angeli, A.: Special issue on abuse and misuse of social agents. I. Comput. 20(3), 287–291 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brahnam, S., Karanikas, M., Weaver, M.: (Un)dressing the interface exposing the foundational hci metaphor ‘computer is woman’. Interact. Comput. 23(5), 401–412 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butler, J.: Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjálmsson, H., Yan, H.: More than just a pretty face: conversational protocols and the affordances of embodiment. Knowl.-Based Syst. 14, 55–64 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chun, W.H.K.: On software, or the persistence of visual knowledge. Grey Room Winter 18, 27–51 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cowell, A.J., Stanney, K.M.: Embodiment and interaction guidelines for designing credible, trustworthy emobidied conversational agents. In: 4th International Workshop IVA (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Angeli, A., Brahnam, S.: I hate you: disinhibition with virtual partners. Interact. Comput. 20(3), 302–310 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Angeli, A., Brahnam, S.: Sex stereotypes and conversational agents. In: AVI 2006 Workshop Gender and Interaction: Real and Virtual Women in a Male World. Venice, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Angeli, A., Carpenter, R.: Stupid computer! abuse and social identity. In: Interact 2005 Workshop Abuse: The Dark Side of Human-Computer Interaction. Rome, pp. 19–25 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deaux, K., Lewis, L.L.: Structure of gender stereotypes: inter-relationships among components and gender label. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46, 991–1004 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elliott, C., Brzezinski, J.: Autonomous agents as synthetic characters. AI Mag. 19, 13–30 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Floridi, L., Taddeo, M., Turilli, M.: Turing’s imitation game: still an impossible challenge for all machines and some judges-an evaluation of the 2008 Loebner contest. Mind. Mach. 19(1), 145–150 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foner, L.: What’s an agent, anyway? a sociological case study. http://www.student.nada.kth.se/kurser/kth/2D1381/JuliaHeavy.pdf), MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge (1993) Accessed 2010
  20. 20.
    Good, I.J.: Pioneering work on computers at Bletchley. In: Metropolis, N., Howlett, J., Rota, G.-C. (eds.) A History of Computing in the Twentieth Century, pp. 31–45. Academic Press Inc, London (1980)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grachnik, A.: Girls Gone Filed (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holbrook, S.E.: Women’s work: the feminizing of composition. Rhetoric Rev. 9, 201–229 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hotchchild, A.R.: The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press, Berkeley (1983)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Joinson, A.: Causes and implications of disinhibited behaviour on the net. In: Gackenbach, J. (ed.) Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications, pp. 43–60. Academic Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lakoff, R.T.: Language and Women’s Place. Harper and Row, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laurel, B.: Interface agents: metaphors with character. In: Laurel, B. (ed.) The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, pp. 355–366. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, MA (1990)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller, S.B.: Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale (1991)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56(1), 81–103 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plantec, P.M.: Virtual Humans: A Build-It-Yourself Kit, Complete Software and Step-by-Step Instructions. AMACOM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shneiderman, B., Maes, P.: Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interactions 4(6), 42–61 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sweeney, M.E.: Not Just a Pretty (Inter)Face: A Critical Analysis of Microsoft’s ‘Ms. Dewey’. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taylor, S.E., Tyler, M.: Emotional labour and sexual difference in the airline industry. Work Employ Soc. 14(1), 77–95 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turing, A.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59(236), 433–460 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Urbina, I.: Your Train Will Be Late, She Says Cheerily. New York Times, 24 November 2004Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., Doering, A.: When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: conversations between adolescents and a female pedagogical agent. Interact. Comput. 20(3), 292–301 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wolf, N.: The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used against Women. Anchor Books, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zdenek, S.: ‘Just roll your mouse over me’: designing virtual women for customer service on the web. Tech. Commun. Q. 16(4), 397–430 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
    https://www.dlis.dla.mil. Accessed 2005
  43. 43.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Information SystemsMissouri State UniversitySpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.Department of EnglishMissouri State UniversitySpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations