Human Factors Consideration for the Design of Collaborative Machine Assistants


Recent improvements in technology have facilitated the use of robots and virtual humans not only in entertainment and engineering but also in the military (Hill et al., 2003), healthcare (Pollack et al., 2002), and education domains (Johnson, Rickel, & Lester, 2000). As active partners of humans, such machine assistants can take the form of a robot or a graphical representation and serve the role of a financial assistant, a health manager, or even a social partner. As a result, interactive technologies are becoming an integral component of people’s everyday lives.


Technology Acceptance Model Physical Attractiveness Social Robot Social Intelligence Virtual Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Aarts, E. H. L., Harwing, R., & Schuurmans, M. (2001). Ambient Intelligence. In: Denning, P. (Ed.), The Invisible Future (pp.235-250)., New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication, MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Adams, J. A. (2002). Critical Consideration for Human-Robot Interface Development. 2002 AAAI Fall Symposium: Human Robot Interaction Technical Report FS-02-03, 1-8.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Aiman-Smith, L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related effects of technology characteristics and user learning activities. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Alba, J. W. & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411-454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. NY: Holt, Rinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Augusto, J. C. & McCullagh, P. (2007). Ambient Intelligence: Concepts and Applications. International Journal on Computer Science and Information Systems, 4(1), 1-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Bennewitz, M., Burgard, W., & Thrun, S. (2002). Using EM to learn motion behaviors of persons with mobile robots. Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and System, 502-507.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Benun, I. (1986). Cognitive components of martial conflict. Behavior Psychotherapy, 47, 302-309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Berscheid, E. & Reis, H. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Ed.), The handbook of Social Psychology, 193-281. NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Bickmore, T. & Cassell, J. (2001). Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. Proceedings of the ACM Computer Human Interaction 2001 Conference. Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Bickmore, T. & Picard, R. (2005). Establishing and Maintaining Long-Term Human-Computer Relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(2), 293-327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Bickmore, T. & Schulman, D. (2006). The Comforting Presence of Relational Agents. Proceedings of the ACM Computer Human Interaction 2006 Conference. Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021-1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Breakwell, G. M., & Fife-Schaw, C. (1988). Aging and the impact of new technology. Social Behaviour, 3, 119-130.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Breazeal, C. (2003). Toward social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 167-175.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Brosnan, M. J. (1999). Modeling technophobia: A case for word processing. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 105-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Bussod, N. & Jacobson, N. (1983). Cognitive behavioral martial therapy. Counseling Psychologist, 11(3), 57-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Caine, K. E., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2007). Designing privacy conscious aware homes for older adults. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Carpenter, B. D., Van Haitsma, K., Ruckdeschel, K., & Lawton, M. P. (2000). The psychosocial preferences of older adults: A pilot examination of content and structure. The Gerontologist, 40, 335-348.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Celuch, K. G., Bantham, J. H., & Kasouf, C. (2006). An extension of the marriage metaphor in buyer-seller relationships: An exploration of individual level process dynamics. Journal of Business Research, 59, 573-581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 191.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Cole, T. & Bradac, J. (1996). A lay theory of relational satisfaction with best friends. Journal of Social Personal Relationships, 13(1), 57-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Cooke, N. M. & Durso, F. T. (2007). Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. Taylor-Francis.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M., Koay, K. L. & Werry, I. (2005). What is a robot companion - Friend, assistant or butler? Proceedings of the IEEE IROS, (pp. 1488-1493). Edmonton, Canada: IEEE.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475-487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Dindia, K. & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of social and personal relationships, 4(2), 143-158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Dragone, M., Duffy, B.R. & O‘Hare, G.M.P. (2005). Social Interaction between Robots, Avatars and Humans, Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2005). Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Eagly, A. H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86-116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Efstation, J., Patton, M., & Kardash, C. (1990). Measuring the working alliance in counselor supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 322-329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Fang, K. (1998). An analysis of electronic-mail usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 349-374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Feil-Seifer D. & Mataric’ M. J. (2005). Defining Socially Assistive Robotics. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 465-468.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Fischer, C. (1975). Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 1319-1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Fisk, A. D. (1999). Human Factors and the older adult. Ergonomics in Design, 7(1), 8-13.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2004). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (in press). Designing for older users: Principles and creative human factors approaches (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Fletcher, G., Fincham, F., Cramer, L., & Heron, N. (1987). The role of attributions in the development of dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 481-489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Fong, T., Thorpe, C., & Baur, C. (2003). Robot, asker of questions. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 235-243.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. N. (1987). Differences between traits: properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409-418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 849-867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Gilbertson, J., Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1998). Relational continuity constructional units and the maintenance of relationships, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6), 774-790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Gill, D., Christensen, A., & Fincham, F. (1999). Predicting marital satisfaction from behavior: Do all roads really lead to rome? Personal Relationships, 6, 369-387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Gilly, M. C. & Zeithaml, V. A. (1985). The elderly consumer and adoption of technologies. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 353-357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    Goldstein, A. G. & Papageorge, J. (1980). Judgments of facial attractiveness in the absence of eye movements. Bulletin of the psychonomic society, 15, 269-270.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42, 203-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    Hartley, E. L. (1946). Problems in prejudice. NY: King’s Crown Press.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2006). The Influence of a robot’s social abilities on acceptance by elderly users. Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN 2006) (pp. 521-526). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    Hill, R. W., Gratch, J., Marsella, S., Rickel, J., Swartout, W., & Traum, D. (2003). Virtual humans in the mission rehearsal exercise system. Kynstlich Intelligenz, 17(4), 32-38.Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    Horvath, A. & Greenberg, L. (1989). Development and validation of the working alliance inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 223-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated Pedagogical Agents: Face-to-Face Interaction in Interactive Learning Environments, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78.Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in Sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of Dissonance theoretical research on “selective exposure to information”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 557-571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23, 183-213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Kelley, H. (1983). Epilogue: An essential science. In H. Kelley, E. Berschedi, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. Peplau, & D. Peterson (Ed.), Close Relationships, 486-503. NY.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    Kitts, C. & Quinn, N. (2004). An interdisciplinary field of robotics program for undergraduate computer science and engineering education, Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(2), article no. 3.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Koda, T.& Maes, P. (1996). Agents with faces: the effect of personification. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication, 189-194.Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    Kollock, R. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: an experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 313-345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Lee, S. & Dubinsky, A. J. (2003). Influence of salesperson characteristics and customer emotion on retail dyadic relationships. The International Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research, 13(1), 21-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    Levinger, G. (1980). Toward the analysis of close relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 510-544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    Lippitt, R. (1959). Dimensions of the consultant’s job. Journal of Social Issues, 15, 5-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    MacDorman, K. F. (2005). Androids as an experimental apparatus: Why is there an uncanny valley and can we exploit it? Proceedings of the CogSci 2005 Workshop: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, 106-118.Google Scholar
  68. [68]
    McGuire, A. (1994). Helping behaviors in the natural environment: dimensions and correlates of helping. Personal Social Psychological Bulletin, 20(1), 45-56.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    Melenhorst, A. S., Rogers, W. A., & Bouwhuis, D. G. (2006). Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychology and Aging, 21, 190-195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    Moreau, C. P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). ’What is it?’ Categorization flexibility and consumers’ responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 14-29.Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Morkes, J., Kernal, H., & Nass, C. (1999). Humor in Task-Oriented Computer-Mediated Communication and Human-ComputerInteraction, ACM Computer Human Interaction 1998 Conference, 215-216.Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Moon, Y. (1998). Intimate self-disclosure exchanges: Using computers to build reciprocal relationships with consumers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. Report: 99-059.Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    Hong, S., & Minor, M. S. (2007). Contextual Factors in the Appearance of Consumer Robots: Exploratory Assessment of Perceived Anxiety Toward Humanlike Consumer Robots, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(5), 624-632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    Park, S. & Catrambone, R. (2007). Social Facilitation Effects of Virtual Humans. Human Factors, 49 (6), 1054-1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    Peterson, D. & Pitz, G. (1988). Confidence, uncertainty, and the use of information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 85-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [76]
    Picard, R. (1997). Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. [77]
    Planalp, S. (1987). Interplay between relational knowledge and events. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee & D. Clarke (Eds.),Accounting for relationships: Explanation, representation and knowledge (pp. 175-191). New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  78. [78]
    Planalp, S. (1993). Friends’ and acquaintances’ conversations II: Coded differences. Journal of Social Personal Relationships, 10, 339-354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. [79]
    Planalp, S., & Benson, A. (1992). Friends’ and acquaintances’ conversations I: Perceived differences. Journal of Social Personal Relationships, 9, 483-506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. [80]
    Pollack, M. E. (2005). Intelligent technology for an aging population: The use of AI to assist elders with cognitive impairment. AI Magazine, 26, 9-24.Google Scholar
  81. [81]
    Pollack, M. E., Engberg, S., Matthews, J. T., Thrun, S., Brown, L., Colbry, D., Orosz, C., Peintner, B., Ramakrishnan, S., Dunbar-Jacob, J., McCarthy, C., Montemerlo, M., Pineau, J., & Roy, N. (2002). Pearl: A Mobile Robotic Assistant for the Elderly, AAAI Workshop on Automation as Eldercare.Google Scholar
  82. [82]
    Rempel, J., Holmes, J., & Zanna, M. (1985). Trust in close relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. [83]
    Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  84. [84]
    Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., Mead, S. E., Walker, N., & Cabrera, E. F. (1996). Training older adults to use automatic teller machines. Human Factors, 38, 425-433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    Rogers, W. A., Meyer, B., Walker, N., & Fisk, A. D. (1998). Functional limitations to daily living tasks in the aged: A focus group analysis. Human Factors, 40, 111-125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. [86]
    Ruyter, B., Saini, P., Markopoulos, P., & Breemen A. (2005). Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interacting with Computers, 17, 522-541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. [87]
    Schlosser, L. Z. & Gelso, C. (2001). Measuring the Working Alliance in Advisor-Advisee Relationships in Graduate School. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(2), 157-167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. [88]
    Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1980). Effects of salience of extrinsic rewards on liking and loving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 453-460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    Shibata, T. (2004). An overview of human interactive robots for psychological enrichment. Proceedings of the IEEE, 92, 1749-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. [90]
    Sniezek, J. A. & Buckley, T. (1989). Social influence in the Advisor-Judge Relationship. Annual Meeting of the Judgment and Decision Making Society, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  91. [91]
    Sniezek, J. A. & Buckley, T. (1995). Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making, Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 62(2), 159-174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. [92]
    Sniezek, J. & van Swol, L. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge-advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 288-307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. [93]
    Stafford, L. & Canary, D. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social Personal Relationships, 8, 217-242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. [94]
    Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Information & Management, 33(1), 1-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. [95]
    Takeuchi, A. & Naito, T. (1995). Situated facial displays: towards social interaction. ACM Computer Human Interaction 1995 Conference, 450-455.Google Scholar
  96. [96]
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425.Google Scholar
  97. [97]
    Xiao, J. (2006). Empirical studies on embodied conversational agents. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  98. [98]
    Xiao, J., Stasko, J., & Catrambone, R. (2003). Be quiet? Evaluating proactive and reactive user interface assistants. Proceedings of the workshop of embodied conversational agent. Google Scholar
  99. [99]
    Xiao, J., Stasko, J., & Catrambone, R. (2007). The role of choice and customization on users’ interaction with embodied conversational agents: Effects on perception and performance. Proceedings of the ACM Computer Human Interaction 2007 Conference, 1293-1302.Google Scholar
  100. [100]
    Yaniv, I. & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 260-281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. [101]
    Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Rickertsen, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. Proceedings of the ACM Computer Human Interaction 2007 Conference, 1-10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of Technology, School of PsychologyHuman Factors and Aging LaboratoryAtlantaUS

Personalised recommendations