Integration of cultural factors into the behavioral models of virtual characters

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511844492.010

10 - Integration of cultural factors into the behavioral models of virtual characters

from Part IV - Engagement

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014

Birgit Endrass and

Elisabeth André

Edited by

Amanda Stent and

Srinivas Bangalore

Show author details

Birgit Endrass: Affiliation:
Augsburg University
Elisabeth André: Affiliation:
Augsburg University
Amanda Stent: Affiliation:
AT&T Research, Florham Park, New Jersey
Srinivas Bangalore: Affiliation:
AT&T Research, Florham Park, New Jersey

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

The design and implementation of embodied virtual agents that converse with human users and/or other agents using natural language is an important application area for Natural Language Generation (NLG). While traditional NLG systems focus on information provision (the transformation of content from a knowledge base into natural language for providing information to readers), embodied conversational agents also need to exhibit human-like qualities. These qualities range from the integration of verbal and non-verbal communicative behaviors – such as facial expressions, gestures, and speech – to the simulation of social and emotional intelligence. To be believable, embodied conversational agents should not all show the same behavior. Rather, they should be realized as individuals that portray personality and culture in a convincing manner.

Whereas a number of approaches exist to tailor system behavior to personality (for example, see the approach by Mairesse and Walker (2008) for NLG and the approach by Hartmann et al. (2005) for gesture generation), few researchers have so far taken up the challenge of modeling the influences of culture on communicative behavior. Even when communication partners speak the same language, irritations and misunderstandings can arise due to cultural differences in what people say and how they say it. For example, Germans tend to get straight to business and be rather formal, while casual small talk is more common in the United States. As a consequence, Americans might perceive Germans as rather reserved and distant, and Germans might feel rather uncomfortable about sharing private thoughts with Americans they have just met.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Natural Language Generation in Interactive Systems , pp. 227 - 251

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844492.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexandris, C. and Fotinea, S.-E. (2004). Discourse particles: Indicators of positive and non-positive politeness in the discourse structure of dialog systems for modern Greek. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung: International Journal for Language Data Processing, 28(1-2):19-29.Google Scholar

Aylett, R., Louchart, S., Dias, J., Paiva, A., and Vala, M. (2005). FearNot! – an experiment in emergent narrative. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pages 305-316, Berlin. Springer.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bull, P. (1987). Posture and Gesture. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Chartrand, T. L. and Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6):893-910.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Decision Systems Laboratory (2005-2007). GeNIe and SMILE. http://genie.sis.pitt.edu/. Accessed on 02/26/2013.

Ekman, P. (2001). Telling Lies – Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage. W. W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 3rd edition.Google Scholar

Endraß, B., André, E., Rehm, M., Lipi, A. A., and Nakano, Y. (2011a). Culture-related differences in aspects of behavior for virtual characters across Germany and Japan. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pages 441-448, Taipei, Taiwan. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar

Endraß, B., Huang, L., Gratch, J., and Andre, E. (2010). A data-driven approach to model culture-specific communication management styles for virtual agents. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pages 99-108, Toronto, Canada. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar

Endraß, B., Nakano, Y., Lipi, A. A., Rehm, M., and André, E. (2011b). Culture-related topic selection in small talk conversations across Germany and Japan. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pages 1-13, Reykjavik, Iceland. Springer.Google Scholar

Endraß, B., Rehm, M., and Andre, E. (2009). Culture-specific communication management for virtual agents. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pages 281-287, Budapest, Hungary. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar

Gratch, J., Rickel, J., André, E., Badler, N., Cassell, J., and Petajan, E. (2002). Creating interactive virtual humans: Some assembly required. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 17(4):54-63.Google Scholar

Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar

Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. R. (1987). Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese. Anchor Books/Doubleday, New York. NY.Google Scholar

Hartmann, B., Mancini, M., Buisine, S., and Pelachaud, C. (2005). Design and evaluation of expressive gesture synthesis for embodied conversational agents. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pages 1095-1096, Utrecht, The Netherlands. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences – Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2nd edition.Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (2011). http://www.geert-hofstede.com/. Accessed on 11/24/2013.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.-J., and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organisations. Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. McGraw-HillUSA, New York, NY, 3rd edition.Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. J., Pedersen, P. B., and Hofstede, G. (2002). Exploring Culture – Exercises, Stories and Synthetic Cultures. Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME.Google Scholar

House, J. (2006). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies, 10(3):249-267.CrossRef Google Scholar

Iacobelli, F. and Cassell, J. (2007). Ethnic identity and engagement in embodied conversational agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pages 57-63, Paris, France. Springer.Google Scholar

Isbister, K., Nakanishi, H., Ishida, T., and Nass, C. (2000). Helper agent: Designing an assistant for human-human interaction in a virtual meeting space. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pages 57-64, The Hague, The Netherlands. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Johnson, W. L., Marsella, S., and Vilhjalmsson, H. (2004). The DARWARS Tactical Language Training System. In Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference, Orlando, FL. National Training and Simulation Association.Google Scholar

Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Andre, E., and Rehm, M. (2005). Cross-cultural evaluation of politeness in tactics for pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED), volume 5, pages 298-305, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society.Google Scholar

Johnson, W. L. and Valente, A. (2009). Tactical language and culture training systems: Using artificial intelligence to teach foreign languages and cultures. AIMagazine, 30(2):72.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jonsdottir, G. R., Thorisson, K. R., and Nivel, E. (2008). Learning smooth, human-like turntak-ing in realtime dialogue. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pages 162-175, Tokyo, Japan. Springer.Google Scholar

Kang, S.-H., Gratch, J., Wang, N., and Watt, J. H. (2008). Agreeable people like agreeable virtual humans. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pages 253-261, Tokyo, Japan. Springer.Google Scholar

Kipp, M. (2001). ANVIL – a generic annotation tool for multimodal dialogues. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH), pages 1367-1370, Aalborg, Denmark. International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

Kipp, M., Neff, M., and Albrecht, I. (2007a). An annotation scheme for conversational gestures: How to economically capture timing and form. Language Resources and Evaluation, 41(3-4):325-339.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kipp, M., Neff, M., Kipp, K. H., and Albrecht, I. (2007b). Towards natural gesture synthesis: Evaluating gesture units in a data-driven approach to gesture synthesis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pages 15-28, Paris, France. Springer.Google Scholar

Lipi, A., Nakano, Y., and Rehm, M. (2009). A parameter-based model for generating culturally adaptive nonverbal behaviors in embodied conversational agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, pages 631-640, San Diego, CA. Springer.Google Scholar

Mairesse, F. and Walker, M. A. (2008). Trainable generation of big-five personality styles through data-driven parameter estimation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT), pages 165-173, Columbus, OH. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Marcus, A. and Alexander, C. (2007). User validation of cultural dimensions of a website design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Usability and Internationalization, pages 160-167, Beijing, China. Springer.Google Scholar

Martin, J.-C., Abrilian, S., Devillers, L., Lamolle, M., Mancini, M., and Pelachaud, C. (2005). Levels of representation in the annotation of emotion for the specification of expressivity in ECAs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pages 405-417, Berlin. Springer.Google Scholar

Mascarenhas, S., Dias, J., Afonso, N., Enz, S., and Paiva, A. (2009). Using rituals to express cultural differences in synthetic characters. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pages 305-312, Budapest, Hungary. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar

Pelachaud, C. (2005). Multimodal expressive embodied conversational agents. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 683-689, Singapore. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Rehm, M., André, E., Nakano, Y., Nishida, T., Bee, N., Endraß, B., Huan, H.-H., and Wissner, M. (2007). The CUBE-G approach – coaching culture-specific nonverbal behavior by virtual agents. In Proceedings of the International Simulation and Gaming Association Conference, page 313, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. International Simulation and Gaming Association.Google Scholar

Rist, T., André, E., and Baldes, S. (2003). A flexible platform for building applications with lifelike characters. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI), pages 158-165, Miami, FL. Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Sato, R., Higashinaka, R., Tamoto, M., Nakano, M., and Aikawa, K. (2002). Learning decision trees to determine turn-taking by spoken dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (INTERSPEECH), pages 861-864, Denver, CO. International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. P. (1988). Small Talk: Analysing Phatic Discourse. Hitzeroth, Marburg, Germany.Google Scholar

Sidner, C. L. (2004). Building spoken-language collaborative interface agents. In Dahl, D., editor, Practical Spoken Dialog Systems, pages 197-226. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the Waves of Culture – Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, UK.Google Scholar

University of Maryland (2005). SHOP: Simple Hierarchical Ordered Planner. http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/shop/. Accessed on 02/26/2012.

Wu, P. and Miller, C. (2010). Interactive Phrasebook™ – conveying culture through etiquette. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Culturally-Aware Tutoring Systems, pages 47-55, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar

Yin, L., Bickmore, T., and Cortés, D.-E. (2010). The impact of linguistic and cultural congruity on persuasion by conversational agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA), pages 343-349, Philadelphia, PA. Springer.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.