Artificial intelligence has been developed to perform all manner of tasks but has not gained capabilities to support social cognition. We suggest that teams comprised of both humans and artificially intelligent agents cannot achieve optimal team performance unless all teammates have the capacity to employ social-cognitive mechanisms. These form the foundation for generating inferences about their counterparts and enable execution of informed, appropriate behaviors. Social intelligence and its utilization are known to be vital components of human-human teaming processes due to their importance in guiding the recognition, interpretation, and use of the signals that humans naturally use to shape their exchanges. Although modern sensors and algorithms could allow AI to observe most social cues, signals, and other indicators, the approximation of human-to-human social interaction -based upon aggregation and modeling of such cues is currently beyond the capacity of potential AI teammates. Partially, this is because humans are notoriously variable. We describe an approach for measuring social-cognitive features to produce the raw information needed to create human agent profiles that can be operated upon by artificial intelligences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvesT.NatálioJ.Henriques-CaladoJ.GamaS.2020. Incorporating personality in user interface design: A review. Personality and Individual Differences, 155(February2019), 109709.
2.
BalthazardP.PotterR. E.WarrenJ. (2004). Expertise, extraversion and group interaction styles as performance indicators in virtual teams: how do perceptions of IT’s performance get formed?. ACM SIGMIS Database: The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 41–64.
3.
BestA.KapaloK. A.WartaS. F.FioreS. M. (2016, May). Clustering social cues to determine social signals: Developing learning algorithms using the” N-Most Likely States” approach. In Unmanned Systems Technology XVIII (Vol. 9837, p. 98370L). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
4.
De CorteC. E.Van KenhoveP. (2017). One sail fits all? A psychographic segmentation of digital pirates. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(3), 441–465.
5.
de OliveiraR.KaratzoglouA.Concejero CerezoP.Armenta Lopez de VicuñaA.OliverN. (2011). Towards a psychographic user model from mobile phone usage. In CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2191–2196).
6.
de VriesR. E.Bakker-PieperA.KoningsF. E.SchoutenB. (2013). The communication styles inventory (CSI) a six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research, 40(4), 506–532.
7.
FioreS. M.WiltshireT. J.LobatoE. J.JentschF. G.HuangW. H.AxelrodB. (2013). Toward understanding social cues and signals in human–robot interaction: effects of robot gaze and proxemic behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 859.
8.
GoetzJ.KieslerS. (2002, April). Cooperation with a robotic assistant. In CHI’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 578–579).
9.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.Jr. (2003). A Very Brief Measure of the Big Five Personality Domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528
10.
HegartyM.WallerD. A. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. Cambridge University Press.
11.
IsaakJ.HannaM. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56–59.
12.
KrishnamurthyR.SrivastavaA. K.PatonJ. E.BellG. A.LevyD. C. (2007). Prediction of consumer liking from trained sensory panel information: Evaluation of neural networks. Food Quality and Preference, 18(2), 275–285.
13.
KrishnanA.WilliamsA. W. A.MartensC. (2020). Towards Action Model Learning for Player Modeling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, 16(1), pp. 238–244).
14.
LeeS. H.JungS. (2020). Fashion consumers’ channel-hopping profiles by psychographics and demographics. International Journal of Market Research, 62(5), 615–632.
15.
LeeK. M.NassC. (2003, April). Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 289–296).
16.
LobatoE. J.WartaS. F.WiltshireT. J.FioreS. M. (2015). Varying Social Cue Constellations Results in Different Attributed Social Signals in a Simulated Surveillance Task. In FLAIRS Conference (pp. 61–66).
17.
MooresT. T.ChangJ. C.-J. (2006). Ethical decision making in software piracy: Initial development and test of a fourcomponent model. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 167–180.
18.
NunesM. A. S.CerriS. A.BlancN. (2008, October). Towards user psychological profile. In Proceedings of the VIII Brazilian symposium on human factors in computing systems (pp. 196–203).
19.
PaunonenS. V.AshtonM. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(3), 524.
20.
PetridesK. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). In Assessing emotional intelligence (pp. 85–101). Springer, Boston, MA.
21.
RobertsonK.McNeillL.GreenJ.RobertsC. (2011). illegal downloading, ethical concern, and illegal behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 215–227.
22.
SakamotoK.FernS. A. L. C.HanL.TongJ. C. (2016, August). Psychographic Profiling for Use in Assistive Social Robots for the Elderly. In International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications (pp. 58–67). Springer, Cham.
23.
VenkateshJ.ShivaranjaniG. (2015). Adversity Quotient Profile: An Effective Psychometric tool to hire the finest aspirant for contemporary organizations. Scholars Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 2(12), 1159–1164
24.
WellsW. D. (1975). Psychographics: A critical review. Journal of marketing research, 12(2), 196–213.
25.
WilliamsJ.BendellR.ParkerJ.TaloneA.SasserJ.VasquezG.JentschF. (2019, November). Exploring the Effect of Stimuli Characteristics on Signal Detection Performance: Sex Influenced Targeting Bias. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 1615–1619). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
26.
WiltshireT. J.WartaS. F.BarberD.FioreS. M. (2017). Enabling robotic social intelligence by engineering human social-cognitive mechanisms. Cognitive Systems Research, 43, 190–207.
27.
Zeigler-HillV.MonicaS. (2015). The HEXACO model of personality and video game preferences. Entertainment Computing, 11, 21–26.
