With or against Each Other? The Influence of a Virtual Agent’s (Non)cooperative Behavior on User’s Cooperation Behavior in the Prisoners’ Dilemma

Abstract

Most applications for virtual agents require the user to cooperate. Thus, it is helpful to investigate different strategies for virtual agents to evoke the user's cooperation. In the present work (N = 80), we experimentally tested the influence of an agent's (non)cooperative nonverbal behavior and actual decision-making behavior on user's cooperation in the Prisoners' Dilemma considering different age groups (students and seniors). Therefore, we used a 2 (nonverbal behavior) x 2 (age group) betweensubjects design in Wizard-of-Oz study. Results show age differences with seniors cooperating more often than students do. The nonverbal behavior had no effect on the users' willingness to cooperate nor on the evaluation of the agent's cooperativeness. However, the agent's decision-making behavior in the game influenced the users' willingness to cooperate. In summary, the nonverbal behavior seemed to be too subtle, while the actions of the agent were important in terms of cooperation.

Switching Schemas: Do Effects of Mindless Interactions With Agents Carry Over to Humans and Vice Versa?

“…Research has supported the predictions of BGR when avatars and humans interact consecutively (e.g., Velez, 2015) and when humans interact with the same agent consecutively (e.g., Straßmann, von der Pütten, & Krämer, 2018). However, Experiment 1 suggested the influence of agents on BGR processes (e.g., future reciprocity expectations and prosocial behaviors towards another) might not transfer to subsequent interactants that are human.…”

“…When it comes to consecutive social interactions, research has demonstrated that human--agent interactions influence peoples' subsequent behaviors towards the same agent, in accordance with the theory of BGR. For example, agents' behaviors in social dilemma games have been shown to evoke reciprocal processes in humans for future interactions with the same agent (Nass, Fogg, & Moon, 1996;Parise, Kiesler, Sproull, & Waters, 1999;Straßmann, von der Pütten, & Krämer, 2018). Although consecutive interactions with agents (human-agent to human-agent) conform to the predictions of BGR, it is unknown whether interactions with agents lead to the same results when the target of subsequent behaviors is a human (human-agent to human-human).…”

Expectations vs. actual behavior of a social robot: An experimental investigation of the effects of a social robot’s interaction skill level and its expected future role on people’s evaluations

“…Since social robots are taking over roles which are traditionally filled by humans and thus are becoming a growing part of our society, it is crucial to examine what affects people's evaluation and acceptance of these robots. How a robot is evaluated depends on several factors like the robot's appearance [1][2][3][4], its nonverbal behavior [3,5], other behavioral aspects (e.g., predictability: [6,7] and cooperativeness: [8]) and media portrayals [9][10][11][12]. This study focuses on three aspects: the robot's behavior, the user's expectation, and the user's individual background.…”

Reaction time coupling in a joint stimulus-response task: A matter of functional actions or likable agents?

“…We here exploit the PD because it has shown to be highly effective in evoking emotions of frustration, annoyance, and strong dislike expressed towards uncooperative agents by participants [ 51 ]. Vice versa, the perceived likability of a virtual agent influences the willingness to cooperate by the participant [ 52 , 53 ]. During the PD game, a participant played a computer game with an agent with the goal to collect as many points as possible (top panel in Fig 1A ).…”