Get One or Create One: the Impact of Graded Involvement in a Selection Procedure for a Virtual Agent on Satisfaction and Suitability Ratings

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)


N = 86 participants were either confronted with a predefined virtual agent, or could select a virtual agent from predefined sets of six or 30 graphical models, or had the opportunity to self-customize the agent’s appearance more freely. We investigated the effect of graded user involvement in the selection procedure on their ratings of satisfaction with the agent and perceived task suitability. In a second step, we explored the psychological mechanism underlying this effect. Statistical analyses revealed that satisfaction with the chosen virtual agent increased with the degree of participants’ involvement in terms of more choice, but not in terms of self-customization. Furthermore, we show that this effect was driven by the perceived likeability, attractiveness, and competence of the agent. We discuss implications of our results for the development of a virtual agent serving as a virtual assistant in a smart home environment.


Technology acceptance Virtual agents Customization Smart home 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Augusto, J.C., Nakashima, H., Aghajan, H.: Ambient intelligence and smart environments: a state of the art. In: Augusto, J.C., Nakashima, H., Aghajan, H. (eds.) Handbook of ambient intelligence and smart environments, pp. 3–31. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dehn, D.M., Van Mulken, S.: The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52(1), 1–22 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reich, N., Eyssel, F.: Attitudes towards service robots in domestic environments: The role of personality characteristics, individual interests, and demographic variables. Journal of Behavioral Robotics 4, 123–130 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schiffhauer, B., Bernotat, J., Eyssel, F., Bröhl, R., Adriaans, J.: Let the user decide! user preferences regarding functions, apps, and control modalities of a smart apartment and a service robot. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR 2016), pp. 971–982. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C.: Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human computer interaction. Pearson, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Diego (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Philips, B., Zhao, H.: Predictors of Assistive Technology Abandonment. Assistive Technology 5, 36–45 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hurst, A., Tobias, J.: Empowering individuals with do-it-yourself assistive technology. In: 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS), pp. 11–18. ACM, Dundee (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mochon, D., Norton, M.I., Ariely, D.: Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect. International Journal of Research in Marketing 29(4), 363–369 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York, NY (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Festinger, L.: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1957)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buisine, S., Martin, J.C.: The effects of speech-gesture cooperation in animated agents’ behavior in multimedia presentations. Interacting with Computers 19, 484–493 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin, S.A.A., Bolebruch, J.: Avatar-based advertising in Second Life: The role of presence and attractiveness of virtual spokespersons. Journal of Interactive Advertising 10(1), 51–60 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J., Glick, P.: Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science 11(2), 77–83 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bergmann, K., Eyssel, F., Kopp, S.: A second chance to make a first impression? how appearance and nonverbal behavior affect perceived warmth and competence of virtual agents over time. In: Nakano, Y., Neff, M., Paiva, A., Walker, M. (eds.) IVA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7502, pp. 126–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33197-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, L., Forlizzi, J., Dey, A., Kiesler, S.: My agent as myself or another: effects on credibility and listening to advice. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI 2007), pp. 194–208. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fiske, S.T., Neuberg, S.L.: A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 23, 1–74 (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown, E., Perrett, D.I.: What gives a face its gender? Perception 22(7), 829–840 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eyssel, F., Hegel, F.: (S)he’s got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42(9), 2213–2230 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S.: Using multivariate statistics. Pearson, Harlow (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hayes, A.F.: Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iyengar, S.S., Lepper, M.R.: When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6), 995 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cluster of Excellence in “Cognitive Interaction Technology” (CITEC)Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations