9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Ecce Homo:

Why It’s Great to be Labeled a “Person”

Clifford NassStanford University

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Three Stories

• Robot best friend• Shylock

– Bleed– Tickle – Poison– Eyes, hands, organs, dimensions,

senses, affections, passions

• Dred Scott case

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Lessons to be Learned

• “Human” is nothing more than a label

• “Human”: not ontological• “Human”: psychological and social

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Does the Label Matter?

• Not philosophical question• Is experimental question

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Humor — Findings

– Funny people are:• Smarter• More likable• More friendly• Does not harm performance

– Even applies in task situations

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Humor — Variables

– Independent variables• Successful humor vs. no humor• HCI vs. CMC

– Dependent variables• Perception of interactant• Behavior• Smiling responses

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Likable

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

HCI CMC

HumorControl

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Cooperation

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

HCI CMC

HumorControl

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Actual Task Time

10

15

20

25

30

35

HCI CMC

HumorControl

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Joking

0

0.5

1

1.5

HCI CMC

HumorControl

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Smiling

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

HCI CMC

HumorControl

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Humor — Implications

• Profoundly human behaviors are acceptable on computers

• People will be verbally friendly to computers

• CMC is basically the same, but – More jokes– More smiles!

• Cognitive construction of person

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Adaptation: Findings

• Humans: Adaptation is universal• Computers: Adaptation is uncommon

– Hard problem– Focus on

• Technology• Precision of measurement

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Possible processes

• Social facilitation– Confident people do better when

observed– Non-confident people do worse

• Stress– Opposite of social facilitation

• Which explanation applies to:– human-computer interaction?– Human-human interaction?

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Method

• Computer-based GRE (same for everyone)

• IVs– Confidence in prior GRE performance

• High• Low

– Adaptation• No adaptation• Ostensibly adapts based on previous

questions

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Performance on the GRECMC

10.5

11

11.5

Confident Unconfident

FixedAdapting

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Performance on the GREHCI

8

10

12

Confident Unconfident

FixedAdapting

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Performance on the GRE

8

10

12

CMC HCI

Conf/ FixedConf/ AdaptingUnconf/ FixedUnconf/ Adapting

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Implications

• Human label influences response to adaptation– Social facilitation in CMC– Choking in HCI

• Rarity effects?

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Animated Representations

• Conformity pressure is powerful– Informative– Normative

• Appearance is powerful

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Method

• Choice-dilemma questionnaire• Representation

– Text box– Stick figure– Rich animated figure

• (Ostensible) Interactant– HCI– CMC

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Traditional CMC

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Animated “People”

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Intelligence of Agent

6

6.5

7

7.5

Trustworthy Competent

Stick Figure - CMC

Animated Figure - CMC

Stick Figure - HCI

Animated Figure - HCI

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Public Conformity

3.5

4.5

5.5

CMC HCI

One Actor - Public

Four Actors - Public

One Actor - Private

Four Actors - Private

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Implications

• Representation matters in HCI• Representation matters in CMC!

– Was that the mental construction?• TTS evidence

– Can’t draw general conclusions about faces, characters, etc.

• CMC exerts great social influence

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Visible Agents

• What happens when agents are indistinguishable from humans?– Distinction disappears or– Label makes a difference

• Expectancy Theory: Everything should match its label

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Labeling: Findings

• Expectation of consistency with label– Better than expected: Great!– Worse than expected: Awful!

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Demo

• Human Slide51.human.movor

• Synthetic Slide51.synthetic.mov

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Context

• Auction Site• Human-looking or agent-looking• “Human” or “Agent”

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Bidding Behavior

50

60

70

Human Agent

HumanAppearanceAgentAppearance

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Implications

• Labels matter• Appearance matters• Humans are held to higher

standard

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Summary – Part I

• Turning Turing Test on its head– “Human” is not ontological– Not “Is it human” but “if it’s human, now

what?”

• HCI does NOT equal social interaction• But what about “Media Equation”?

– Cognitive construction may be at the critical determinant

9/29/01 Human-Robot Interaction

Final Question

• Will robots ever be labeled “human”?