Experimental Investigation for a Human Relationship Formation
Support Agent using Information Presentation During Conversation
Michimasa Inaba, Kana Otsuka and Kenichi Takahashi
Graduate School of Information Sciences, Hiroshima City University,
3-4-1 Ozukahigashi, Asaminami-ku, Hiroshima, Japan
Keywords:
Communication Support Agent, Information Presentation, Intelligent User Interface.
Abstract:
In this paper, we performed an experimental investigation aimed at developing an agent to support the for-
mation of human relationships by supporting the user’s daily communication “casually”, “anytime” and “any-
where”. First, we collected conversations between men and women meeting for the first time, then analyzed
what type of support would be effective for the formation of human relationships. Based on the results of this
analysis, we performed experiments supporting communication. In the experiment, we provided not only top-
ics to the user during conversation, but also comprehensive presentation of instructions such as expressions,
eye contact and gestures. The results confirmed that this significantly improved human relationships after
conversation and showed the validity of this support.
1 INTRODUCTION
Our goal is to realize an agent that will grasp the com-
munication state of a supported user and his or her
conversation partner in real-time and offer advice to
the user through a wearable device. Studies to support
communication have been performed widely. How-
ever, these have been extremely limited in terms of
use conditions, requiring large equipment or displays
or for the conversation participants to wear special-
ized devices such as sensors. The objective of this
study is to support the formation of human relation-
ships by supporting the user’s daily communication
“casually”, “anytime” and “anywhere”.
This study does not suppose any specialized situa-
tions, such as the conversation partner using a partic-
ular device or being equipped with sensors. Only the
supported user wears the required device, and support
is given independent of situation or location. More-
over, the system provides not only topics to the user
during conversation, but also includes comprehensive
presentation of instructions such as expressions, eye
contact and gestures. We aim to realize an agent that
makes it possible to promote better human relation-
ship formation through those presentations.
However, it is not necessarily clear what types of
content would be effective to present to the user, or
that it would be possible for such a system to promote
the formation of good human relationships. Thus, in
this study we collect data from conversations between
men and women meeting for the first time and per-
form analysis to find effective support content. Then,
we perform experiments that present the support con-
tent to the user during communication. In this study,
however, we do not target situational recognition dur-
ing communication, but have a person to choose the
content and timing to be presented in the experiment.
We then assess the content presented to the user and
the effectiveness of support during communication
from the perspective of forming better human rela-
tionships. Also, in this study we viewed mutual in-
terpersonal impressions as a human relationship, and
examined the effectiveness of promoting human re-
lationship formation by determining how much in-
terpersonal impressions of conversations partners im-
proved during conversation.
Participants answered a survey covering a number
of impressions before and after the conversation, and
data was collected on the changes. Next, we analyzed
how the conversations related to changes in impres-
sions. Through this analysis, we determined the con-
tent to present. Finally, we performed an experiment
to support communication by presenting the content
determined through the analysis to a user. However,
we do not target situational recognition during com-
munication, rather having a person to choose the con-
tent and timing to be presented.
Inaba, M., Otsuka, K. and Takahashi, K.
Experimental Investigation for a Human Relationship Formation Support Agent using Information Presentation During Conversation.
DOI: 10.5220/0005643200870094
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2016) - Volume 1, pages 87-94
ISBN: 978-989-758-172-4
Copyright
c
2016 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
87
2 RELATED RESEARCH
A number of studies that present information to con-
versation participants in order to support face-to-face
communication are being carried out.
Research on supporting communication through
the presenting information on a display or other de-
vice includes the Ambient Suite information environ-
ment proposed by Fujita et al. to support communi-
cation between multiple people (Fujita et al., 2011).
Ambient Suite is a system that estimates the state of
the conversation using multiple sensor attached to the
participants and displays photographs or other infor-
mation on displays placed on the walls or floor. Multi-
ple studies to support communication in meetings and
similar environments by visualizing elements such as
talk time, gaze and head movement are also being per-
formed (Madan et al., 2004; Sturm et al., 2007). Kim
et al. proposed Meeting Mediator, which supports
balanced discussions by visualizing participant talk
amounts on portable terminals during meetings (Kim
et al., 2008). Ticket2Talk, proposed by Mccarthy et
al., is a system that displays the area of expertise of
conference participants standing near a display using
RFID tags(McCarthy et al., 2004). Other studies in-
clude a method to present information related to con-
versation participants by attaching miniature displays,
such as badges (Borovoy et al., 1998) and a method to
present information in informal spaces such as break
rooms (Matsuda and Nishimoto, 2002).
However, the systems in these studies place ma-
jor restriction on the place and situation in which they
can be used, such as requiring large devices or par-
ticipants wearing sensors or RFID tags. In addition,
support effectiveness is assessed through increases in
conversation (Fujita et al., 2011; Matsuda and Nishi-
moto, 2002) or satisfaction (Kim et al., 2008; Mc-
Carthy et al., 2004). We are not aware of any studies
which treat promoting the formation of human rela-
tionships as the main objective and perform analysis
from that aspect.
3 COLLECTION AND
ANNOTATION OF
CONVERSATION DATA
In this study, we first collected conversation data for
determining the instruction content to be presented
to the user. The collected data was taken at fifteen-
minute intervals from a male and female meeting for
the first time. Questionnaire surveys were conducted
immediately before and after the conversation.
In this chapter, we talk about the conversation data
collection method and questionnaire content.
3.1 Collection Method
In this study, we collected data from conversations
between unacquainted males and females meeting for
the first time. This type of conversation was chosen in
order to make it easier to analyze the relationship with
the actual communication carried out by starting with
a situation in which human relationships were not yet
formed, then observing what type of relationship was
formed after the the conversation ended. We also con-
sidered that using conversations between males and
females would more easily show differences in re-
gards to conversation liveliness and participant atti-
tude in comparison with conversations between two
members of the same gender.
The conversation collection procedure is as fol-
lows. First, participants were moved from waiting
rooms, which were divided by gender, to a room for
collection. The participants sat across from one an-
other at a table. Upon a signal from an operator, par-
ticipants greeted one another and gave self introduc-
tions. Afterwards, the participants returned to their
waiting rooms and answered a pre-conversation sur-
vey. After answering the survey, both participants
returned to the collection room and sat down once
again. At a signal from the operator,they began a con-
versation lasting for fifteen minutes. No restrictions,
instructions or proposals were given for the topics or
content discussed by the participants; they were only
told to converse for fifteen minutes. After the conver-
sation, each participant moved to another room where
he or she answered a post-conversation survey.
3.2 Survey
In order to grasp changes in the relationship between
the participants before and after the conversation, par-
ticipant personalities and characteristics, and conver-
sation conditions, we gave surveys before and after
the fifteen-minute conversation. The content of these
surveys are described below.
3.2.1 Pre-conversation Survey
The pre-conversation survey was composed of two
items using an eight-step Lickert scale (1: very good,
8: not good at all). Survey items are shown below.
[Eight-step Survey Items]
Q1. Do you have a good impression of your conver-
sation partner?
ICAART 2016 - 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
88
Q2. Are you good at small talk?
The first eight-step item, Q1, is a question to sur-
vey the participant’s impression of his or her partner.
The second, Q2, is a question to survey the partici-
pant’s conversation ability.
3.2.2 Post-conversation Survey
The post-conversation survey was composed of
three items: two eight-step Lickert scale items (1:
very good, 8: not good at all) and one free writing
question. The survey items are shown below.
[Eight-step Survey Items]
Q1. Do you have a good current impression of your
conversation partner?
Q2. Did the conversation go well?
[Free Writing Item]
Q3. Please write down anything that you noticed in
particular.
The first eight-step item, Q1, is a question to ex-
amine the participant’s impression of his or her part-
ner. The second, Q2, is a question to survey his or her
impression of the conversation itself. The free writing
item, Q3, is a question to survey anything the partici-
pant noticed during the conversation.
3.3 Collection Results
The participants consisted of a total of 26 college stu-
dents, graduate students and high school students (13
males: average age 21.92, 13 females: average age
21.46, overall: average age 21:69). A total of 23 con-
versations were carried out.
Table 1 shows the results of the pre-conversation
survey conducted together with conversation data col-
lection, and Table 2 shows the results of the post-
conversation survey. Comparing the average values
for the question “Do you have a good impression of
your conversation partner?” before the conversation
and “Do you have a good current impression of your
conversation partner?” after the conversation, we find
that the value increased by 0.72. Thus, we find that
conversations tended to improve impressions.
Looking at the question Are you good at small
talk?”, which examines the participant’s own conver-
sation ability, we see that the average value of 4.58 fell
roughly in the center of the eight-step scale. The vari-
ance was also larger in comparison with other items,
showing that the participants included both those who
Table 1: Pre-conversation survey results (conversation data
collection).
Survey item Average Variance
Q1 Do you have a good 2.59 1.05
impression of your
conversation partner?
Q2 Are you good at 4.58 3.69
small talk?
Table 2: Post-conversation survey results (conversation data
collection).
Survey item Average Variance
Q1 Do you have a good 1.87 0.52
current impression of
your conversation
partner?
Q2 Did the conversation 2.57 1.67
go well?
were skilled at conversation and those who were not.
In the “Did the conversation go well?” question in
the post-conversation survey, we find a positive result
with an average of 2.57. This suggests that conversa-
tions tended to go well overall.
3.4 Instruction Content
Based on analysis of the collected conversation data
and our literature review, we determined content to be
presented to a target user for communication support.
Table 3 shows the instruction content we determined.
The line “(2 from Topics A)” seen in 3, 5, 6, 7 and
9 of the table indicate choosing and displaying the
specified number of topics from those given in Table
4. For example, the instruction content of 3 in Table
3 proposes Ask your partner about his or her plans
“Christmas” “Travel” .
Below, we given our reasons for determining each
instruction content. Instruction contents 1 to 9 were
determined based on the determination made from
the results of the analysis of the collected conversa-
tion data, i.e. that if the participants who become
the speaker and listener, respectively, actively pursue
their own respective roles, this tends to improve im-
pressions. In addition, instruction contents 1 to 4 are
intended to support a listener in moving the conver-
sation forward, while 5 to 9 are intended to support a
speaker. The topics in Table 4 were determined with
reference to the list of topics for initial conversations
between college students given by Mimaki (Mimaki,
2013).
Instruction content 10 is to be given in situations
in a conversation when the participant can nod, based
Experimental Investigation for a Human Relationship Formation Support Agent using Information Presentation During Conversation
89
Table 3: Instruction content.
No. Content
1 Ask your partner “What about you?” or
“What do you think?”
2 Ask for a reason
3 Ask your partner about his or her plans (2
from Topics A)
4 Ask your partner about him/herself
“Hometown”, “Hobbies, recent interests”,
“Siblings”
5 Let your partner speak about the following
topic (3 from Topics B)
6 Talk about yourself (2 from Topics C)
7 Talk about your own plans (2 from Topics
A)
8 Talk about your own experiences “Part-
time job”, “Travel”, “Club activities”
9 Talk about one of the following topics con-
necting with yourself (3 from Topics B)
10 Nod in agreement with your partner
11 Respond with “I see” or “Yes, that’s true”
12 Do not cover your hand with your face
13 Do not put your elbows up
14 Do not touch your hair
15 Do not cross your arms
16 Try to smile
17 Talk about the following topics to find
common points with your partner “Hob-
bies”, “Sports”, “Favorite music”, “Home-
town”
18 Look your partner in the eye and speak
19 Try to maintain good posture
20 Try to maintain a bright tone of voice
Table 4: Topics to present.
Topics A Christmas, Travel, New Year’s
Eve, New Year’s Day, End-of-year
cleaning
Topics B TV, Pro baseball, School, Movies,
J-League soccer, Studies, Video
games, Food, Sports
Topics C Hometown, Hobbies/current inter-
ests, siblings, recent events
on the analysis results, in which it was determined
that more nodding tended to improve impressions. In-
struction content 11 is also meant to indicate to the
partner that one is listening, as with nodding. Instruc-
tion contents 12 to 15 were determined from the anal-
ysis results, which determined that touching hair or
crossing arms can harm one’s impression. Instruction
content 16 is given based on the analysis, in which
it was determined that smiling tended to improve im-
pressions.
Instruction content 17 was determined to make it
easier to discover common points with one’s partner,
as the free writing section of the post-conversation
survey included multiple opinions such as “the con-
versation went well because we were able to find
common points”, and in these cases impressions im-
proved.
Instruction contents 18 to 20 are given to give a
better impression to one’s partner.
4 CONVERSATION SUPPORT
THROUGH INFORMATION
INSTRUCTIONS
In this chapter, we perform an experiment in which
we support a conversationby teaching the participants
information. We then compare these with conversa-
tions without instructions to determine whether they
were able to form better human relationships. Follow-
ing the procedure of the data collection experiment
conducted in Chapter 3, males and females meeting
for the first time conducted fifteen-minute conver-
sations with pre-conversation and post-conversation
surveys.
During the experiment, one of the two participants
received information. The information was presented
using a projector and screen. This was done because
we believed it would be best to avoid wearing any
special apparatus and to simulate the conditions of
the conversation collection experiment in Chapter 3
as closely as possible. The content and timing of the
content shown on the screen was determined manu-
ally. In this experiment, an operator determines the
state of the conversation and decides the content to
display.
4.1 Instruction Method
Instructions were presented using a projector and
screen. While sounds could be used to convey in-
structions in addition to visual cues, this could make
it more difficult to concentrate on the conversation, so
in this experiment we gave instructions using a pro-
jector and screen.
Figure 1 shows an outline of the experiment envi-
ronment. Of the two participants shown in the figure,
one is the instructed participant, who will receivecon-
versation support in the form of instructional informa-
tion, and the other is the non-instructed participant,
who will not receive support. The two participants sit
across a table from one another and conduct a conver-
ICAART 2016 - 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
90
Figure 1: Experiment environment orientation.
Figure 2: Screen display examples (translated by authors).
sation. A project and screen are set up behind the non-
instructed participant. In this manner, instructions are
presented only to the instructed participant. The op-
erator is seated in a position that allows him or her to
see the expressions and movements of the instructed
participant.
The operator observes the conversation content as
well as the actions and attitude of the participants and
displays instructions suitable to the conditions on the
screen by operating a PC connected to the projec-
tor. Figure 2 gives four examples of information dis-
played to the screen (Original instructions are written
in Japanese only). Text is displayed on the top half of
the screen to make it easier to see over the conversa-
tion partner.
When the conversation begins, topics for finding
common points are presented (17 in Table 3). From
then on, the operator determines the content and tim-
ing of the displayed information based on the follow-
ing basic guideline.
Provide topics during periods of silence (4, 6, etc.
in Table 3)
Point out issues with the participant (12, 13, etc.
in Table 3)
Promote responses (10, 11, etc. in Table3)
In cases when there is little need for support, such
as when the conversation is going well, display
16, 18, 19, 20 in Table 3 in order.
Instruction content does not disappear from the
screen until the next instruction content is displayed.
In other words, the screen is always displaying some
information until the conversation ends. However, the
operator gavenew content for display at least once per
minute. The same instruction was not given twice in
a row.
As a result of the analysis, we determined that lis-
teners and speakers should concentrate on their re-
spective roles. Thus, we determined whether the
instructed participant was a listener or a speaker
and changed instruction content accordingly. As de-
scribed in the previous section, 1 to 4 in Table 3 cor-
respond with listener instructions, while 5 to 9 corre-
spond with speaker instructions. The determination of
whether the participant was a speaker or a listener was
made by the operator during roughly the first minute
of the conversation.
4.2 Experiment Method
The experiment was conducted with male and female
participants meeting for the first time. Participants
were composed of a total of 20 college and graduate
students (10 males: average age 22.10, 10 females:
average age 22.00, overall: average age 22.05). A
total of 20 conversations were conducted. Each par-
ticipant conducted conversations with two members
of the opposite gender. In one of these conversations
the participant received instruction, while in the other
he or she did not receive instruction (while his or her
partner received information).
The experiment procedure followed that of the
conversation data collection experiment described in
Section 3.1. In other words, participants greeted one
another, performed self introductions, completed pre-
conversation surveys, conducted a fifteen-minute con-
versation, and completed post-conversationsurveys in
that order. However, in this experiment we explained
the instruction method and content to both the in-
structed participant and non-instructed participant be-
fore greetings and self-introductions. This informa-
tion was also explained to the non-instructed partici-
pant in order to preventconditions in which the partic-
ipant became concerned with what was displayed on
the screen and could not concentrate on the conversa-
tion. Instructed participants were told that while they
Experimental Investigation for a Human Relationship Formation Support Agent using Information Presentation During Conversation
91
did not have to follow all instructions if the actions
or conversation felt unnatural, they should follow the
instructions as closely as possible.
4.3 Surveys
The pre-conversation survey was identical to that
given in the conversation data collection experiment
in Section 3.2.1. Both instructed participants and non-
instructed participants used the same pre-conversation
survey, but each answered different surveys after the
experiment. In addition to the post-conversation sur-
vey explained below, the instructed participant also
completed a survey examining the utility of the in-
struction content. This was performed by giving the
instructed participant a list of the instruction content
shown on the screen and having him or her mark
which items were useful and which were not (with
multiple answers acceptable).
4.3.1 Post-conversation Survey for Instructed
Participants
The post-conversation survey for instructed partic-
ipants consisted of eight eight-step Lickert scale
items (e.g. 1: strongly agree, 8: strongly disagree),
one ten-step Lickert scale item (1: 10%, 10: 100%),
and two free writing items. Survey items are shown
below.
[Eight-step Survey Items]
Q1. Do you have a good current impression of your
conversation partner?
Q2. Did the conversation go well?
Q3. Was the instruction timing good?
Q4. Were the text position, size and color good?
Q5. Were the instructions useful for smoothly mov-
ing the conversation forward?
Q6. Were the instructions useful for making the con-
versation go well?
Q7. Were the pointers and advice for attitude and be-
havior (e.g. “Try to smile” or “Nod”) useful?
Q8. Overall, were the instructions useful?
[Ten-step Survey Item]
Q9. To what extent were you able to utilize the
conversation support contents?
[Free Writing Items]
Q10. Please writing any positive points about the in-
structions
Q11. Please writing any points about the instructions
that need improvement
Of these, Q1 and Q2 are the same as those used
in conversation data collection. Q3 to Q8 are used
to assess the instructions from the instructed partici-
pant’s point of view. The single ten-step item is used
to survey how much the participant followed the in-
structions. Free writing items Q10 and Q11 are used
to survey opinions related to instructions given during
conversation.
4.3.2 Post-conversation Survey for
Non-instructed Participants
The survey for non-instructed participants was
composed of three eight-step Lickert scale items. The
survey items are shown below.
[Eight-step Survey Items]
Q1. Do you have a good current impression of your
conversation partner?
Q2. Do you think the conversation went well?
Q3. Did you feel any unease about your conversation
partner being supported?
Of these, Q1 and Q2 are the same as those used
in the conversation data collection experiment. Q3 is
used to assess the instructions from the non-instructed
participant’s point of view.
4.4 Experiment Results and Discussion
Table 5 shows the result of the pre-conversation sur-
vey, Table 6 shows the results of the instructed par-
ticipant post-conversation survey, and Table 7 shows
the results of the non-instructed participant post-
conversation survey. Instructions were shown an av-
erage of 15.1 times during conversation.
In Q2 Are you good at small talk?” of Table 5, the
average value is 4.50. As with the conversation data
collection experiment, participants both good and bad
at small talk participated. In Q9 of Table 6, the uti-
lization of the instruction contents was about 60
Q3 in Table 7 shows that non-instructed partici-
pants felt little discomfort about their partners receiv-
ing instructions. This suggests that the visual presen-
tation method was suitable.
4.4.1 Changes in Impression Due to the
Presence of Instructions
As with the data analysis, we examined the change
in partner impression by looking at the variance be-
ICAART 2016 - 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
92
Table 5: Pre-conversation survey results (conversation sup-
port experiment).
Survey item Ratio Variance
Q1 Do you have a good
impression of your
conversation partner?
3.00 1.33
Q2 Are you good at
small talk?
4.50 3.74
Table 6: Results of post-conversation survey for instructed
participants (conversation support experiment).
Survey item Ratio Variance
Q1 Do you have a good
current impression
of your conversation
partner?
2.10 1.57
Q2 Do you think the con-
versation went well?
3.05 2.79
Q3 Was the instruction
timing good?
3.30 1.59
Q4 Were the text position,
size and color good?
2.30 1.38
Q5 Were the instructions
useful for smoothly
moving the conversa-
tion forward?
2.95 1.84
Q6 Were the instructions
useful for making the
conversation go well?
3.20 2.59
Q7 Were the pointers and
advice for attitude and
behavior (e.g. “Try to
smile” or “Nod”) use-
ful?
2.95 1.21
Q8 Overall, were the in-
structions useful?
3.05 1.63
Q9 To what extent were
you able to utilize
the conversation sup-
port contents?
6.30 6.64
tween the answer to the eight-step item Q1 in the pre-
conversation survey and the answer to the eight-step
item Q1 in the post-conversation survey. As seen in
Tables 5 through 7, the average changes in impression
for participants were 0.70 for non-instructed partici-
pants and 1.15 for instructed participants. The aver-
age value for changes in impression in the data col-
lection experiment in Chapter 3 was 0.72
1
.
These results show that the impression of in-
structed participants improved greatly in comparison
1
Participants in the conversation data collection experi-
ment can also be viewed as non-instructed participants.
Table 7: Results of post-conversation survey for non-
instructed participants (conversation support experiment).
Survey item Ratio Variance
Q1 Do you have a good
current impression
of your conversation
partner?
2.05 0.37
Q2 Do you think the con-
versation went well?
2.35 0.87
Q3 Did you feel any un-
ease about your con-
versation partner being
supported?
5.85 2.13
with participants in the conversation data collection
experiment and non-instructed participants in this ex-
periment. In addition, a t-test confirmed a signif-
icant difference with both with a significance level
of 5%. Thus, this shows that the impressions of in-
structed participants improve significantly in compar-
ison with non-instructed participants. Thus, we were
able to confirm that conversation support through in-
structions is useful for enlivening conversation and
obtaining better impressions from others.
4.4.2 Effectiveness of Conversation Support
Through Information Presentation
Survey results for Q5 to Q8 of Table 6 give assess-
ments of approximately 3.0 for instructions helping
to smoothly move conversations forward, enlivening
conversations and helping to face conversations with
better attitudes and behaviors. We obtained good re-
sults for other subjective assessments from the in-
structed participants as well.
In addition, in analyzing the free writing survey,
we found opinions from participants that answered
that the instructions were useful included that topic
support “was good because I was given topics when
I couldn’t think of any”, and that “the conversa-
tion started smoothly because the first topic was pro-
vided”. There were also opinions about the indica-
tions and advice for attitude and behavior, includ-
ing “I was nervous about talking with someone I was
meeting for the first time, but the indications about
behavior helped me to smile”.
4.4.3 Instruction Content Assessment
Table 8 shows the results of the survey related to the
usefulness of instruction content conducted simulta-
neously with the post-conversation survey. The ta-
ble shows ratios of participants who answered that
instructions were helpful or not helpful for seven in-
Experimental Investigation for a Human Relationship Formation Support Agent using Information Presentation During Conversation
93
Table 8: Instruction content usefulness assessment results.
Instruction content Ratio of useful deter-
minations
Ratio of non-useful
determinations
Ask your partner about him/herself “Hometown”,
“Hobbies, recent interests”, “Siblings”
0.90 0.00
Look your partner in the eye and speak 0.80 0.00
Try to maintain good posture 0.70 0.05
Try to smile 0.65 0.10
Nod in agreement with your partner 0.60 0.05
Respond with “I see” or “Yes, that’s true” 0.50 0.00
Try to maintain a bright tone of voice 0.40 0.15
struction content items that were shown during ten or
more (half of the total) conversations.
In the table, six items were determined to be useful
by a ratio of more than 0.50 of participants. Ratios of
participants answering that these same six items were
not useful were less than 0.10.
On the other hand, the instruction to brighten
one’s town of voice had the lowest ratio of partici-
pants who found it useful at 0.50, and the highest ratio
of participants who did not find it to be useful at 0.15,
the highest of the seven items. It may be that because
suddenly raising one’s voice would be unnatural, and
many participants found this difficult to utilize, mak-
ing it less useful. Thus, we must examine changing
expressions or giving more specific instructions for
raising the tone of one’s voice.
5 CONCLUSION
In this study, we aimed to construct a system that
would allow promoting the formation of human re-
lationships through displaying information to a user,
and showed instruction content and the usefulness of
conversation support through information presenta-
tion experimentally.
We first collected conversation data between two
people meeting for the first time.Next, we analyzed
the conversation and using the knowledge gained
from the results of the analysis, we determined con-
tent that should be presented to the user in order to
give his or her partner a good impression. Finally,
upon conducting an experiment supporting conver-
sation through presenting information to a user dur-
ing conversation, we confirmed that these instructions
significantly improved the impression of the user’s
partner compared with users that did not receive in-
struction.
REFERENCES
Borovoy, R., Martin, F., Vemuri, S., Resnick, M., Silver-
man, B., and Hancock, C. (1998). Meme tags and
community mirrors: moving from conferences to col-
laboration. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM confer-
ence on Computer supported cooperative work, pages
159–168. ACM.
Fujita, K., Itoh, Y., Ohsaki, H., Ono, N., Kagawa, K.,
Takashima, K., Tsugawa, S., Nakajima, K., Hayashi,
Y., and Kishino, F. (2011). Ambient suite: enhancing
communication among multiple participants. In Pro-
ceedings of the 8th International Conference on Ad-
vances in Computer Entertainment Technology, pages
25:1–25:8. ACM.
Kim, T., Chang, A., Holland, L., and Pentland, A. S. (2008).
Meeting mediator: enhancing group collaborationus-
ing sociometric feedback. In Proceedings of the 2008
ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative
work, pages 457–466. ACM.
Madan, A., Caneel, R., and Pentland, A. S. (2004). Group-
media: distributed multi-modal interfaces. In Pro-
ceedings of the 6th international conference on Multi-
modal interfaces, pages 309–316. ACM.
Matsuda, K. and Nishimoto, K. (2002). Huneas: Supporting
informationsharing and activating human-network by
exploiting spontaneous encounters in an organization.
IPSJ Journal, 43(12):3571–3581.
McCarthy, J. F., McDonald, D. W., Soroczak, S., Nguyen,
D. H., and Rashid, A. M. (2004). Augmenting the so-
cial space of an academic conference. In Proceedings
of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, pages 39–48. ACM.
Mimaki, Y. (2013). Discourse Analysis on Politeness : How
People Interact at First Encounters. Kuroshio Pub-
lishers.
Sturm, J., Herwijnen, O. H.-v., Eyck, A., and Terken,
J. (2007). Influencing social dynamics in meetings
through a peripheral display. In Proceedings of the 9th
international conference on Multimodal interfaces,
pages 263–270. ACM.
ICAART 2016 - 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
94