Interactive engagement with embodied agents: an empirically validated framework

Abstract

This paper presents an empirically tested theoretical framework to explain user engagement and end-user satisfaction with interactive agents. Such a framework is not only important from a scientific point of view; application designers may find a set of dos and don'ts that help them create more satisfying embodied agents in different task domains and social settings. From a multidisciplinary perspective, we have conducted a series of experiments to verify underlying mechanisms in the processes of interacting and engaging with embodied agents in various task domains. Our results show that the most commonly held views are not always tenable; sometimes other factors provide better explanations for liking an embodied agent or end-user satisfaction. For example, it is not realism but rather affordances and ethics that are key for understanding user responses, and a beautiful design is not always the most preferable. From our results, guidelines for designers and future research are reflected upon.

To immerse or not? Experimenting with two virtual retail environments

“…Also, past research found that social virtual worlds' continuance intentions depended on user satisfaction, which is in turn a function of utilitarian, hedonic and social benefits (Zhou et al, 2012(Zhou et al, , 2014Verhagen et al, 2011). Starting from the key role of consumer satisfaction in building and maintaining loyalty (Yoo et al, 2010), end-user satisfaction emerges as the basic element of every user-system interaction, acting as a performance measure of the system (Van Vugt et al, 2009). Much prior research focusses on hedonic and utilitarian shopping values as shopping motivations and the value of shopping experience, yet little attention to date has been paid to the outcomes of shopping value in terms of consumers' behaviour ( Jones et al, 2006).…”

Designing Robot Embodiments for Social Interaction: Affordances Topple Realism and Aesthetics

“…1). I-PEFiC explains how users interact with fictional characters based on the user's perception of ethics, affordances, aesthetics, and realism [38]. I-PEFiC divides the process of perceiving and experiencing interactive (fictional) characters into three separate phases: encode, compare, and respond (see Fig.…”

“…and realism (how real and fake is the character?). After encoding, users compare these features to their own characteristics, goals, concerns, and respond accordingly [22,38], resulting in a felt tendency to use the character or not (use intentions). This is accompanied by a level of engagement with the character.…”

“…Involvement can be explained as the inclination to affectively approach the character someone is interacting with (e.g., feeling sympathy), and distance is the experienced tendency of wanting to avoid the character (e.g., being annoyed) [22]. Finally, the combination of use intentions together with involvement and distance explain the overall satisfaction with the character [38][39][40].…”

“…However, this is difficult to operationalize in the form of a questionnaire and introduces additional test fatigue in the participants, due to the extensive set of factors in I-PEFiC. Therefore, similar to previous I-PEFiC studies [21,22,[38][39][40], we have aggregated affordances into an overall level of competence (e.g., 'is the robot capable to successfully help you? '), rather than the actual amount of perceived action possibilities.…”