Computers communicate with humans in ways that increasingly resemble interactions between humans. Nuances in expression and responses to human behavior become more sophisticated, and they approach those of human-human interaction. The question arises whether we want systems eventually to behave like humans, or whether systems should, even when much more developed, still adhere to rules that are different from the rules governing interpersonal communication. The panel addresses this issue from various perspectives, eventually aiming to gain some insights into the question of the direction to which the development of machine-human communication and the etiquette implemented in the systems should move.
References
1.
BecharaA. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 30-40.
2.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
3.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK.
4.
ChristoffersenK.WoodsD. D. (2002). How to make automated systems team players. In SalasE. (Ed.) Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Volume 2, pp. 1-12. JAI Press/Elsevier.
5.
CulleyK.MadhavanP. (2013). A note of caution regarding anthropomorphism in HCI agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 577–579.
6.
de MeloC.GratchJ. (2015). People Show Envy, Not Guilt, when Making Decisions with Machines. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction.
7.
DennettD. C. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
8.
DiSalvoC.GemperleF. (2002). All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In DIS ’02 Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 321–326). New York, NY.
9.
DzindoletM.PetersonS.PomrankyR. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–718.
10.
EpleyN.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
11.
FeighK. M.DorneichM. C.HayesC. C. (2012). Toward a characterization of adaptive systems a framework for researchers and system designers. Human Factors, 54(6), 1008-1024.
12.
FerdigR. E.MishraP. (2004). Emotional responses to computers: Experiences in unfairness, anger, and spite. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 143.
13.
FinkJ. (2012). Anthropomorphism and Human Likeness in the Design of Robots and Human-Robot Interaction. In Social Robotics (pp. 199–208). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
14.
FisherC. D.NobleC. S. (2004). A within-person examination of correlates of performance and emotions while working. Human Performance, 17(2), 145-168.
15.
GentilvisoC. (2010). The 50 Worst Inventions: Clippy. Time.
16.
GraesserA. C.ChipmanP.HaynesB. C.OlneyA. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 612-618.
17.
HayesC. C.MillerC. A. (2011). Human-Computer Etiquette. Boca-Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.
18.
InbarO.MeyerJ.(2015). Manners matter: Trust in robotic peacekeepers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting, September2015, 59, 186-189.
19.
KaberD., et al. (2005). Adaptive Automation of Human-Machine System Information-Processing Functions. Human Factors, 47(4), 730–741.
20.
KimP., et al. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49–65.
21.
KleinJ.MoonY.PicardR. W. (2002). This computer responds to user frustration: Theory, design, and results. Interacting with Computers, 14(2), 119-140.
22.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors, 46 (1), 50-80.
23.
LeeJ.-E. R.NassC. I. (2010). Trust in computers: The computers-are-social-actors (CASA) paradigm and trustworthiness perception in human-computer communication. In LatusekD. (ed.) Trust and Technology in a Ubiquitous Modern Environment: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. IGI Global.
24.
LickliderJ. C. R. (1960). Man-Computer Symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1, 4-11.
25.
LucasG. M., et al. (2014). It’s only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 94–100.
MeyerJ.LeeJ. D. (2013). Trust, reliance and compliance. In LeeJ. D.KirlikA. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Engineering. Oxford University Press.
28.
MillerC. (Guest Ed.) (2004). Human-Computer Etiquette: Managing Expectations with Intelligent Agents. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 30-34.
29.
MillerC.WuP.FunkH. (2008). A Computational Approach to Etiquette: Operationalizing Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Model”. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(4), 28-35.
30.
MillerC., et al. (2007). A Computational Approach to Etiquette and Politeness: An “Etiquette Engine™” for Cultural Interaction Training. Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation. Norfolk, VA; March 26-29.
31.
MoriM. (1970/2012). The uncanny valley (MacDormanK. F.KagekiN., Trans.). IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100.
32.
MuirB. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37 (11), 1905-1922.
33.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.
34.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT.WickensC. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297.
35.
ParasuramanR.CosenzoK. a.de VisserE. J. (2009). Adaptive automation for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: Effects on change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Military Psychology, 21(2), 270–297.
36.
ReevesB.NashC. (1996). The Media Equation: How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
RivaP.SacchiS.BrambillaM. (2015). Humanizing Machines: Anthropomorphization of slot machines increases gambling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 21 (4), 313-325.
38.
RoviraE.McGarryK.ParasuramanR. (2007). Effects of imperfect automation on decision making in a simulated command and control task. Human Factors, 49(1), 76–87.
39.
SanfeyA. G.RillingJ. K.AronsonJ. A.NystromL. E.CohenJ. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science, 300(5626), 1755–1758.
40.
SarterN.SchroederB. (2001). Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: the case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43(4), 573–83.
41.
SchweitzerM.HersheyJ.BradlowE. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 1–19.
42.
WienerE. L. (1988). Cockpit automation. In WienerE. L.NagelD. C. (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 433–461). San Francisco, CA: Academic Press.
43.
WoolfB., et al. (2009). Affect-aware tutors: recognising and responding to student affect. International Journal of Learning Technology, 4(3-4), 129-164.
44.
WuP., et al. (2010). Computational models of etiquette and culture. Human-Computer Etiquette: Cultural Expectations and the Design Implications they Place on Computers and Technology, 63.
