The Effect of Design Features on Relationship Quality with Embodied Conversational Agents: A Systematic Review | International Journal of Social Robotics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Effect of Design Features on Relationship Quality with Embodied Conversational Agents: A Systematic Review

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Embodied conversational agents (ECAs) are increasingly used in healthcare and other settings to improve self-management and provide companionship. Their ability to form close relationships with people is important for enhancing effectiveness and engagement. Several studies have looked at enhancing relationships with ECAs through design features focused on behaviours, appearance, or language. However, this evidence is yet to be systematically synthesized. This systematic review evaluates the effect of different design features on relationship quality with ECAs. A systematic search was conducted on electronic databases EMBASE, PsychInfo, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Web of Science in January–February 2019. 43 studies were included for review that evaluated the effect of a design feature on relationship quality and social perceptions or behaviours towards an ECA. Results synthesize effective design features and lay a scientific framework for improving relationships with ECAs in healthcare and other applications. Risk of bias for included studies was generally low, however there were some limitations in the research quality pertaining to outcome measurement and the reporting of statistics. Further research is needed to understand how to make ECAs effective and engaging for all consumers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cassell J, Sullivan J, Churchill E, Prevost S (eds) (2000) Embodied conversational agents. MIT Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Liew TW, Tan SM (2016) The effects of positive and negative mood on cognition and motivation in multimedia learning environment. J Educ Technol Soc 19(2):104–115

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tamayo S, Perez-Marin D (2012) An agent proposal for reading understanding: applied to the resolution of maths problems. In: 2012 international symposium on computers in education (SIIE), pp 1–4

  4. Ryokai K, Vaucelle C, Cassell J (2003) Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning. J Comput Assist Learn 19(2):195–208

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lopez V, Eisman EM, Castro JL (2008). A tool for training primary health care medical students: the virtual simulated patient. In 20th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence, pp 194–201

  6. Hayashi Y (2015) Influence of social communication skills on collaborative learning with a pedagogical agent: investigation based on the Autism-spectrum quotient. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on human-agent interaction, pp 135–138

  7. Roorda DL, Koomen HMY, Split JL, Oort FJ (2011) The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: a meta-analytic approach. Rev Educ Res 81(4):493–529

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cornelius-White J (2007) Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 77(1):113–143

    Google Scholar 

  9. McBreen H, Shade P, Jack M, Wyard P (2000) Experimental assessment of the effectiveness of synthetic personae for multi-modal e-retail applications. Proc Fourth Int Conf Autonom Agents 3(7):39–45

    Google Scholar 

  10. Matthews A, Anderson N, Anderson J, Jack M (2008) Individualised product portrayals in the usability of a 3D embodied conversational agent in an ebanking scenario. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on intelligent virtual agents, pp 516–517

  11. Cassell J, Bickmore T, Billinghurst M, Campbell K, Chang K, Vilhjalmsson H, Yan H (1999) Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 520–527

  12. Arafa Y, Mamdani A (2000) Face-to-face interaction with an electronic personal sales assistant. Proc IEEE Conf Syst Man Cybern 2:792–797

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beldad A, Hegner S, Hoppen J (2016) The effect of virtual sales agent (VSA) gender—product gender congruence on product advice credibility, trust in VSA and online vendor, and purchase intention. Comput Hum Behav 60:62–72

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vasiljevs A, Skadina I, Deksne D, Martins KT, Vira LI (2017) Application of virtual agents for delivery of information services. In: Proceedings of the international scientific conference on new challenges of economic and business development, pp 667–678

  15. Cyr D, Hassanein K, Head M, Ivanov A (2007) The role of social presence in establishing loyalty in e-service environments. Interact Comput 19(1):43–56

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gardiner PM, McCue KD, Negash LM, Cheng T, White LF, Yinusa-Nyahkoon L, Bickmore TW (2017) Engaging women with an embodied conversational agent to deliver mindfulness and lifestyle recommendations: a feasibility randomized control trial. Patient Educ Couns 100(9):1720–1729

    Google Scholar 

  17. Provoost S, Lau HM, Ruwaard J, Riper H (2017) Embodied conversational agents in clinical psychology: a scoping review. J Med Internet Res 19(5):e151

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bickmore T, Pfeifer L (2008) Relational agents for antipsychotic medication adherence. In: CHI’08 workshop on technology in mental health

  19. Edwards RA, Bickmore T, Jenkins L, Foley M, Manjourides J (2013) Use of an interactive computer agent to support breastfeeding. Matern Child Health J 17(10):1961–1968

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bickmore TW, Schulman D, Sidner C (2013) Automated interventions for multiple health behaviors using conversational agents. Patient Educ Couns 92(2):142–148

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bickmore TW, Silliman RA, Nelson K, Cheng DM, Winter M, Henault L, Paasche-Orlow MK (2013) A randomized controlled trial of an automated exercise coach for older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 61(10):1676–1683

    Google Scholar 

  22. Watson A, Bickmore T, Cange A, Kulshreshtha A, Kvedar J (2012) An internet-based virtual coach to promote physical activity adherence in overweight adults: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e1

    Google Scholar 

  23. House J, Kahn R (1985) Measures and concepts of social support. In: Social support and health. New York: Academic Press

  24. Hogan BE, Linden W, Najarian B (2002) Social support interventions: do they work? Clin Psychol Rev 22(3):381–440

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Gouin JP, Hantsoo L (2010) Close relationships, inflammation, and health. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35(1):33–38

    Google Scholar 

  26. Uchino BN, Cacioppo JT, Kiecolt-Glaser JK (1996) The relationship between social support and physiological processes: a review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychol Bull 119(3):488

    Google Scholar 

  27. Robinson H, Ravikulan A, Nater UM, Skoluda N, Jarrett P, Broadbent E (2017) The role of social closeness during tape stripping to facilitate skin barrier recovery: preliminary findings. Health Psychol 36(7):619

    Google Scholar 

  28. Heinrichs M, Baumgartner T, Kirschbaum C, Ehlert U (2003) Social support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress. Biol Psychiat 54(12):1389–1398

    Google Scholar 

  29. Valtora NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B (2016) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 102(3):1009–1016

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT (2010) Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 40(2):218–227

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ring L, Barry B, Totzke K, Bickmore T (2013) Addressing loneliness and isolation in older adults: proactive affective agents provide better support. In: 2013 Humaine Association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction, pp 61–66. IEEE

  32. Sidner CL, Bickmore T, Nooraie B, Rich C, Ring L, Shayganfar M, Vardoulakis L (2018) Creating new technologies for companionable agents to support isolated older adults. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst (TiiS) 8(3):17

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bickmore TW, Mauer D, Brown T (2009) Context awareness in a handheld exercise agent. Pervas Mobile Comput 5(3):226–235

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jeong S, Breazeal C, Logan D, Weinstock P (2018) Huggable: the impact of embodiment on promoting socio-emotional interactions for young pediatric inpatients. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 1–13

  35. Kessler RC, McLeod JD (1985) Social support and mental health in community samples. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Uchino BN (2006) Social support and health: a review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. J Behav Med 29(4):377–387

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ring L, Shi L, Totzke K, Bickmore T (2015) Social support agents for older adults: longitudinal affective computing in the home. J Multimodal User Interfaces 9(1):79–88

    Google Scholar 

  38. Broadbent E, Garrett J, Jepsen N, Ogilvie VL, Ahn HS, Robinson H, Peri K, Kerse N, Rouse P, Pillai A, MacDonald B (2018) Using robots at home to support patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 20(2):e45

    Google Scholar 

  39. Joranson N, Pedersen I, Rokstad AMM, Ihlebaek C (2015) Effects of symptoms of agitation and depression in persons with dementia participating in robot-assisted activity: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 16(10):867–873

    Google Scholar 

  40. Chipidza FE, Wallwork RS, Stern TA (2015) Impact of the doctor-patient relationship. In: The primary care companion for CNS disorders, vol 17, no 5

  41. Stewart MA (1995) Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J 152(9):1423

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware Jr, JE (1989) Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care S110–S127

  43. Roberts CS, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Baile WF, Gibertini M (1994) Influence of physician communication on newly diagnosed breast patients’ psychologic adjustment and decision-making. Cancer 74(S1):336–341

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schillinger D, Bindman A, Wang F, Stewart A, Piette J (2004) Functional health literacy and the quality of physician–patient communication among diabetes patients. Patient Educ Couns 52(3):315–323

    Google Scholar 

  45. Thompson L, McCabe R (2012) The effect of clinician-patient alliance and communication on treatment adherence in mental health care: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 12(1):87

    Google Scholar 

  46. Alexander JA, Hearld LR, Mittler JN, Harvey J (2012) Patient–physician role relationships and patient activation among individuals with chronic illness. Health Serv Res 47(3):1201–1223

    Google Scholar 

  47. Broadbent E, Johanson D, Shah J (2018) A new model to enhance robot-patient communication: applying insights from the medical world. In: Ge S et al (eds) Social robotics. ICSR 2018. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 11357. Springer, Cham, pp 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05204-1_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Pejsa T, Andrist S, Gleicher M, Mutlu B (2015) Gaze and attention management for embodied conversational agents. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst (TiiS) 5(1):3

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kulms P, Kopp S, Krämer NC (2014) Let’s be serious and have a laugh: can humor support cooperation with a virtual agent?. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents, Springer, Cham, pp 250–259

  50. Partala T, Surakka V, Lahti J (2004) Affective effects of agent proximity in conversational systems. In: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, pp 353–356. ACM

  51. Cerekovic A, Aran O, Gatica-Perez D (2016) Rapport with virtual agents: what do human social cues and personality explain? IEEE Trans Affect Comput 8(3):382–395

    Google Scholar 

  52. Romero OJ, Zhao R, Cassell J (2017) Cognitive-inspired conversational-strategy reasoner for socially-aware agents. In: IJCAI, pp 3807–3813

  53. Kang SH, Gratch J, Wiederhold BK, Riva G (2012) Socially anxious people reveal more personal information with virtual counselors that talk about themselves using intimate human back stories. Ann Rev Cyber Telemed 181:202–207

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bergmann K, Eyssel F, Kopp S (2012) A second chance to make a first impression? How appearance and nonverbal behavior affect perceived warmth and competence of virtual agents over time. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents, pp 126–138. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  55. Qiu L, Benbasat I (2009) Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation agents: a social relationship perspective to designing information systems. J Manag Inf Syst 25(4):145–182

    Google Scholar 

  56. Shamekhi A, Liao QV, Wang D, Bellamy RK, Erickson T (2018) Face Value? Exploring the effects of embodiment for a group facilitation agent. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, p 391. ACM

  57. Kang SH, Phan T, Bolas M, Krum DM (2016) User perceptions of a virtual human over mobile video chat interactions. In: International conference on human-computer interaction, Springer, Cham, pp 107–118

  58. Cerekovic A, Aran O, Gatica-Perez D (2014) How do you like your virtual agent? Human-agent interaction experience through nonverbal features and personality traits. In: International workshop on human behavior understanding. Springer, Cham, pp 1–15

  59. Chattaraman V, Kwon WS, Gilbert JE, Ross K (2019) Should AI-Based, conversational digital assistants employ social-or task-oriented interaction style? A task-competency and reciprocity perspective for older adults. Comput Hum Behav 90:315–330

    Google Scholar 

  60. Morry MN, Reich T, Kito M (2010) How do I see you relative to myself? Relationship quality as a predictor of self- and partner-enhancement within cross-sex friendships, dating relationships, and marriages. J Soc Psychol 150(4):369–392

    Google Scholar 

  61. Dush CMK, Amato PR (2005) Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. J Personal Soc Relationsh 22(5):607–627

    Google Scholar 

  62. Bickmore T, Pfeifer L, Schulman D (2011) Relational agents improve engagement and learning in science museum visitors. In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 55–67

  63. Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inq 1(4):285–293

    Google Scholar 

  64. Allison T, Puce A, McCarthy G (2000) Social perception from visual cues: role of the STS region. Trends Cognit Sci 4(7):267–278

    Google Scholar 

  65. Alotaibi MB, Rigas DI (2012) Fostering the user interface acceptance in customer relationship management: a multimedia-aided approach. In: 2012 ninth international conference on information technology-new generations, pp 796–801. IEEE

  66. Griffiths S, Eyssel FA, Philippsen A, Pietsch C, Wachsmuth S (2015) Perception of artificial agents and utterance friendliness in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on new frontiers in human-robot interaction at the AISB convention 2015

  67. Brave S, Nass C, Hutchinson K (2005) Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(2):161–178

    Google Scholar 

  68. Creed C, Beale R (2012) User interactions with an affective nutritional coach. Interact Comput 24(5):339–350

    Google Scholar 

  69. Dobrian F, Awan A, Joseph D, Ganjam A, Zhan J, Sekar V, Stoica I, Zhang H (2013) Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. Commun ACM 56(3):91

    Google Scholar 

  70. Doherty K, Doherty G (2018) Engagement in HCI: conception, theory and measurement. ACM Comput Surv 51(5):1–39

    Google Scholar 

  71. Stevens CJ, Pinchbeck B, Lewis T, Luerssen M, Pfitzner D, Powers DM, Gibert G (2016) Mimicry and expressiveness of an ECA in human-agent interaction: familiarity breeds content! Comput Cognit Sci 2(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  72. Bickmore TW, Vardoulakis LMP, Schulman D (2013) Tinker: a relational agent museum guide. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 27(2):254–276

    Google Scholar 

  73. Kang SH, Gratch J (2011) People like virtual counselors that highly-disclose about themselves. Ann Rev Cyber Telemed 167:143–148

    Google Scholar 

  74. Kang SH, Gratch J (2014) Exploring users’ social responses to computer counseling interviewers’ behavior. Comput Hum Behav 34:120–130

    Google Scholar 

  75. Bickmore TW, Picard RW (2005) Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 12(2):293–327

    Google Scholar 

  76. Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. www.covidence.org

  77. Gilani SN, Sheetz K, Lucas G, Traum D (2016) What kind of stories should a virtual human swap? In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Cham, pp 128–140

  78. Novick D, Gris I, Camacho A, Rayon A, Gonzalez T (2017) Bigger (Gesture) isn’t always better. In: International conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 609–619

  79. Hoegen R, Van Der Schalk J, Lucas G, Gratch J (2018) The impact of agent facial mimicry on social behavior in a prisoner’s dilemma. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on intelligent virtual agents. ACM, pp 275–280

  80. Novick D, Gris I (2014) Building rapport between human and ECA: a pilot study. In: International conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 472–480

  81. Krämer NC, Lucas G, Schmitt L, Gratch J (2018) Social snacking with a virtual agent–On the interrelation of need to belong and effects of social responsiveness when interacting with artificial entities. Int J Hum Comput Stud 109:112–121

    Google Scholar 

  82. Von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC, Gratch J, Kang SH (2010) It doesn’t matter what you are! Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1641–1650

    Google Scholar 

  83. Ranjbartabar H, Richards D, Bilgin A, Kutay C (2019) First impressions count! The role of the human’s emotional state on rapport established with an empathic versus neutral virtual therapist. In: IEEE transactions on affective computing

  84. Shamekhi A, Liao QV, Wang D, Bellamy RK, Erickson T (2018) Face Value? exploring the effects of embodiment for a group facilitation agent. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, p 391

  85. Partala T, Surakka V, Lahti J (2004) Affective effects of agent proximity in conversational systems. In: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction. ACM, pp 353–356

  86. Bickmore T, Cassell J (2001) Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 396–403

  87. Von der Pütten A, Hoffmann L, Klatt J, Krämer NC (2011) Quid pro quo? Reciprocal self-disclosure and communicative accomodation towards a virtual interviewer. In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 183–194

  88. Bickmore T, Schulman D (2009) A virtual laboratory for studying long-term relationships between humans and virtual agents. In: Proceedings of The 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Vol 1, pp 297–304. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

  89. Richards D, Bransky K (2014) ForgetMeNot: what and how users expect intelligent virtual agents to recall and forget personal conversational content. Int J Hum Comput Stud 72(5):460–476

    Google Scholar 

  90. Andrist S, Mutlu B, Gleicher M (2013) Conversational gaze aversion for virtual agents. In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 249–262

  91. Kulms P, Krämer NC, Gratch J, Kang SH (2011) It’s in their eyes: a study on female and male virtual humans’ gaze. In: International workshop on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 80–92

  92. Takashima K, Omori Y, Yoshimoto Y, Itoh Y, Kitamura Y, Kishino F (2008) Effects of avatar’s blinking animation on person impressions. In: Graphics interface conference, pp 169–176. ACM

  93. Lisetti C, Amini R, Yasavur U, Rishe N (2013) I can help you change! an empathic virtual agent delivers behavior change health interventions. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst 4(4):19

    Google Scholar 

  94. Ochs M, Pelachaud C, Mckeown G (2017) A user perception-based approach to create smiling embodied conversational agents. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 7(1):4

    Google Scholar 

  95. Qiu L, Benbasat I (2005) Online consumer trust and live help interfaces: the effects of text-to-speech voice and three-dimensional avatars. Int J Hum Comput Interact 19(1):75–94

    Google Scholar 

  96. Sagar M, Bullivant D, Robertson P, Efimov O, Jawed K, Kalarot R, Wu T (2014) A neurobehavioural framework for autonomous animation of virtual human faces. In: Proceedings of the SA’14 SIGGRAPH Asia workshop on autonomous virtual humans and social robot for tele-presence. ACM

  97. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Medicine, the University of Auckland School of Medicine, Building 507, Level 3, 22-30 Park Avenue, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand

    Kate Loveys, Gabrielle Sebaratnam & Elizabeth Broadbent

  2. Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Mark Sagar

Authors
  1. Kate Loveys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabrielle Sebaratnam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Sagar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth Broadbent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kate Loveys.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

MS is the CEO of Soul Machines (an artificial intelligence company), which supports KL with a PhD stipend, and contracts EB for consultancy work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 120 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loveys, K., Sebaratnam, G., Sagar, M. et al. The Effect of Design Features on Relationship Quality with Embodied Conversational Agents: A Systematic Review. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 1293–1312 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00680-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00680-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation