skip to main content
research-article

Brains or Beauty: How to Engender Trust in User-Agent Interactions

Published:04 January 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Software-based agents are becoming increasingly ubiquitous and automated. However, current technology and algorithms are still fallible, which considerably affects users’ trust and interaction with such agents. In this article, we investigate two factors that can engender user trust in agents: reliability and attractiveness of agents. We show that agent reliability is not more important than agent attractiveness. Subjective user ratings of agent trust and perceived accuracy suggest that attractiveness may be even more important than reliability.

References

  1. David A. Abwender and Kenyatta Hough. 2001. Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on U.S. participants’ judgment and sentencing recommendations. Journal of Social Psychology 141, 5 (2001), 603--615. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600574 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Thomas R. Alley and Katherine A. Hildebrandt. 1988. Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 101--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Coren L. Apicella, David R. Feinberg, and Frank W. Marlowe. 2007. Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Biology Letters 3, 6 (2007), 682--684. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Michael J. Baker and Gilbert A. Churchill Jr. 1977. The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research 14, 4 (1977), 538--555. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Beautycheck. 2016. https://www.beautycheck.de.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellen Berscheid and Elaine Hatfield. 1969. Interpersonal attraction. Addison Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Timothy W. Bickmore and Rosalind Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12, 2 (2005), 293--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. R. Thomas Boone and Ross Buck. 2003. Emotional expressivity and trustworthiness: The role of nonverbal behavior in the evolution of cooperation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27, 3 (2003), 163--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Fabio Calefato, Filippo Lanubile, and Nicole Novielli. 2015. The role of social media in affective trust building in customer--supplier relationships. Electronic Commerce Research 15, 4 (2015), 453--482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Shelly Chaiken. 1979. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 8 (1979), 1387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Sarah A. Collins. 2000. Men’s voices and women’s choices. Animal Behaviour 60, 6 (2000), 773--780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Michael R. Cunningham, Alan R. Roberts, Anita P. Barbee, Perri B. Druen, and Cheng-Huan Wu. 1995. “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, 2 (1995), 261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Laura A. Dabbish and Ryan S. Baker. 2003. Administrative assistants as interruption mediators. In CHI’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1020--1021. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Berardina De Carolis, Irene Mazzotta, Nicole Novielli, and Sebastiano Pizzutilo. 2010. Social robots and ECAs for accessing smart environments services. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, 275--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Celso M. De Melo, Peter Carnevale, Stephen Read, Dimitrios Antos, and Jonathan Gratch. 2012. Bayesian model of the social effects of emotion in decision-making in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 55--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Berkeley J. Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons, and Cade Massey. 2014. Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143, 6 (2014), 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Karen Dion. 1972. Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children’s transgressions*. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24, 2 (1972), 207--213. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033372 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Karen Dion, Ellen Berscheid, and Elaine Walster. 1972. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24, 3 (1972), 285--290. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033731 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Karen K. Dion. 1973. Young children’s stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental Psychology 9, 2 (1973), 183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Karen K. Dion and Ellen Berscheid. 1974. Physical attractiveness and peer perception among children. Sociometry (1974), 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Karen K. Dion and Steven Stein. 1978. Physical attractiveness and interpersonal influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14, 1 (1978), 97--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. David Dowell, Mark Morrison, and Troy Heffernan. 2015. The changing importance of affective trust and cognitive trust across the relationship lifecycle: A study of business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management 44 (2015), 119--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. A. Chris Downs and Phillip M. Lyons. 1991. Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, 5 (1991), 541--547. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Alice H. Eagly, Richard D. Ashmore, Mona G. Makhijani, and Laura C. Longo. 1991. What is beautiful is good, but: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin 110, 1 (1991), 109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Michael G. Efran. 1974. The effect of guilt, of physical appearance on the judgment severity interpersonal attraction, and of recommended punishment in a simulated. Journal of Research in Personality 8 (1974), 45--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Gerald P. Elovitz and John Salvia. 1983. Attractiveness as a biasing factor in the judgments of school psychologists. Journal of School Psychology 20, 4 (1983), 339--345. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Sarah Evans, Nick Neave, and Delia Wakelin. 2006. Relationships between vocal characteristics and body size and shape in human males: An evolutionary explanation for a deep male voice. Biological Psychology 72, 2 (2006), 160--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Alan Feingold. 1992. Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin 111, 2 (1992), 304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Brian J. Fogg and Clifford Nass. 1997. Silicon sycophants: The effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46, 5 (1997), 551--561. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Paul Fraccaro, Benedict Jones, Jovana Vukovic, Finlay Smith, Christopher Watkins, David Feinberg, Anthony Little, and Lisa Debruine. 2011. Experimental evidence that women speak in a higher voice pitch to men they find attractive. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 9, 1 (2011), 57--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Hershey H. Friedman, Michael J. Santeramo, and Anthony Traina. 1978. Correlates of trustworthiness for celebrities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 6, 4 (1978), 291--299. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Alyssa Glass, Deborah L McGuinness, and Michael Wolverton. 2008. Toward establishing trust in adaptive agents. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 227--236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. William Griffitt and Russell Veitch. 1974. Preacquaintance attitude similarity and attraction revisited: Ten days in a fall-out shelter. Sociometry 37, 2 (1974), 163--173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Megumi Hosoda, Eugene F. Stone-Romero, and Gwen Coats. 2003. The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology 56, 2 (2003), 431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Hyperion. 2000. Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Hyperion, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Linda A. Jackson, John E. Hunter, and Carole N. Hodge. 1995. Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly 58, 2 (1995), 108--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Denise B. Kandel. 1978. Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, 3 (1978), 306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. David A. Kenny and William Nasby. 1980. Splitting the reciprocity correlation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38, 2 (1980), 249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Rita J. Casey, Jean M. Ritter, Loretta A. Rieser-Danner, and Vivian Y. Jenkins. 1987. Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? Developmental Psychology 23, 3 (1987), 363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Judith H. Langlois and Cookie White Stephan. 1981. Beauty and the beast: The role of physical attractiveness in the development of peer relations and social behavior. Developmental Social Psychology: Theory and Research (1981), Oxford University Press New York, 152--168.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Eun J. Lee. 2009. I like you, but I won’t listen to you: Effects of rationality on affective and behavioral responses to computers that flatter. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 67, 8 (2009), 628--638. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.03.003 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Jungwon Lee, Jinwoo Kim, and Jae Yun Moon. 2000. What makes internet users visit cyber stores again? key design factors for customer loyalty. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 305--312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Scott LeeTiernan, Edward Cutrell, Mary Czerwinski, and Hunter Hoffman. 2001. Effective notification systems depend on user trust. In Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction--Interact. 54--69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. James C. Lester, Sharolyn A. Converse, Susan E. Kahler, S. Todd Barlow, Brian A. Stone, and Ravinder S. Bhogal. 1997. The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 359--366. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. J. David Lewis and Andrew Weigert. 1985. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63, 4 (1985), 967--985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Xuan Liu and Yi Xu. 2011. What makes a female voice attractive? Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. 2174--1277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Diane M. Mackie and Leila T. Worth. 1991. Feeling good, but not thinking straight: The impact of positive mood on persuasion. Emotion and Social Judgments 23 (1991), 210--219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Pattie Maes. 1994. Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM 37, 7 (1994), 30--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Masha Maltz and Joachim Meyer. 2000. Cue utilization in a visually demanding task. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society... Annual Meeting, Vol. 1. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 283. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Ronald Mazzella and Alan Feingold. 1994. The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24, 15 (1994), 1315--1338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. William J. McGuire. 1969. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. Handbook of Social Psychology 3, 2 (1969), 136--314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Arthur G. Miller. 1970. Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science 19, 4 (1970), 241--243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Judson Mills and Elliot Aronson. 1965. Opinion change as a function of the communicator’s attractiveness and desire to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1, 2 (1965), 173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Youngme Moon. 1998. Intimate Self-Disclosure Exchanges: Using Computers to Build Reciprocal Relationships with Consumers. Division of Research, Harvard Business School.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. John Morkes, Hadyn K. Kernal, and Clifford Nass. 1998. Humor in task-oriented computer-mediated communication and human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 215--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56, 1 (January 2000), 81--103. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Steve A. Nida and John E. Williams. 1977. Sex-stereotyped traits, physical attractiveness, and interpersonal attraction. Psychological Reports 41, 3f (1977), 1311--1322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Lena A. Nordholm. 1980. Beautiful patients are good patients: Evidence for the physical attractiveness stereotype in first impressions of patients. Social Science 8 Medicine Part A: Medical Psychology 8 Medical Sociology 14, 1 (1980), 81--83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Pamela M. Pallett, Stephen Link, and Kang Lee. 2010. New “golden” ratios for facial beauty. Vision Research 50, 2 (2010), 149--154. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.003 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Gordon L. Patzer. 1983. Source credibility as a function of communicator physical attractiveness. Journal of Business Research 11, 2 (1983), 229--241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CLSI and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. John K. Rempel, John G. Holmes, and Mark P. Zanna. 1985. Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, 1 (1985), 95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Curtis A. Samuels and Richard Ewy. 1985. Aesthetic perception of faces during infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 3, 3 (1985), 221--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Norbert Schwarz, Herbert Bless, and Gerd Bohner. 1991. Mood and persuasion: Affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24 (1991), 161--199. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Jean H. Searcy and James C. Bartlett. 1996. Inversion and processing of component and spatial--relational information in faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22, 4 (1996), 904.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Harold Sigall and Nancy Ostrove. 1975. Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, 3 (1975), 410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Harold Sigall, Richard Page, and Ann C Brown. 1969. The effects of physical attractiveness and evaluation on effort expenditure and work output. In Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. John E. Stewart. 1980. Defendant’s attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: An observational study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10, 4 (1980), 348--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. John E. Stewart. 1985. Appearance and punishment: The attraction-leniency effect in the courtroom. Journal of Social Psychology 125, 3 (1985), 373--378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Lijuan Wang, Wei Han, Frank K. Soong, and Qiang Huo. 2011. Text driven 3D photo-realistic talking head. In INTERSPEECH. 3307--3308.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Andrew J. Weigert. 1981. Sociology of Everyday Life. Longman.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Sandy Wood and Kara Kovalchik. 2012. Mental Floss Trivia: Brisk Refreshing Facts Without the Ice Cream. Puzzlewright, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Louise C. Young and Gerald S. Albaum. 2002. Developing a Measure of Trust in Retail Relationships: A Direct Selling Application. School of Marketing, University of Technology, Sydney.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Miron Zuckerman and Robert E. Driver. 1989. What sounds beautiful is good: The vocal attractiveness stereotype. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 13, 2 (1989), 67--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Miron Zuckerman, Holley Hodgins, and Kunitate Miyake. 1990. The vocal attractiveness stereotype: Replication and elaboration. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 14, 2 (1990), 97--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Brains or Beauty: How to Engender Trust in User-Agent Interactions

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
              ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 17, Issue 1
              Special Issue on Affect and Interaction in Agent-based Systems and Social Media and Regular Paper
              February 2017
              213 pages
              ISSN:1533-5399
              EISSN:1557-6051
              DOI:10.1145/3036639
              • Editor:
              • Munindar P. Singh
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2017 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 4 January 2017
              • Revised: 1 September 2016
              • Accepted: 1 September 2016
              • Received: 1 December 2015
              Published in toit Volume 17, Issue 1

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader