.png){kind=logo}
ISSN : 1229-8778
Along with the fourth industrial revolution, the artificial intelligence (AI) technology is rapidly expanding into our daily lives. The interaction between human being and AI devices is expected to have effects not only on psychological aspects in terms of subjective well-being and stress level but also cognitive and behavioral aspects. This study aims to help an overall understanding of the ‘human-AI device interaction’ through a qualitative research method. To achieve this goal, this study conducted in-depth interviews with those using AI speakers. As a result, ‘human-AI device interaction’ factors were divided into three dimensions: user, AI device, and environment. First, 1) The user-aspect factors relates to demographics and lifestyle, psychological characteristics, personality characteristics, and cognitive characteristics. Next, 2) the factors on the AI device aspect were categorized into the characteristics of the device and perceived device characteristics. Finally, 3) the environmental aspect divided into factors related to the situation and the physical environment, social environment, and external stimulus. This study is expected to provide theoretical implications through providing psychological factors, and will be a foundation that provides directions of the AI-related research in the future. Furthermore, these results have practical implications for the AI industry that will continue to grow.
곽소나, & 김은호 (2009). 인간은 로봇감정표현에 공감하는가?. 로봇과 인간, 6(3), 4-11.
김해숙, 임남열, & 이혜진 (2018). 살인사건 피해 유가족의 심리적 경험에 대한 현상학적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 24(2), 301-335.
권상희 (2007). 인터넷 미디어의 상호작용성 (Interactivity) 차원 연구. 한국방송학보, 21 (2), 46-97.
파이낸셜 뉴스, 최영희, 2018. http://www. fnnews.com/news/201806300814127767
박경옥 (2017). 인공지능 가상비서의 비서직무 수행역량에 대한 연구. 비서․사무경영연구, 26(2), 253-272.
박수유. 아이채널. 로봇, 인간을 치유하다. http://www.ichannela.com/news/main/news_detailPage.do?publishId=000000068257 2018. 3. 21
박은주 (2018). 배타뉴스. 미국 내 가구 당 스마트 스피커 보급률은 약 20& 10대 중 7대는 ‘아마존’ http://www.betanews.net/article/ 820999
변옥환. 인공지능은 “친구와 대화”, 기술보다 감성..AI 키워드 48만개 분석. http://kpenews. com/Board.aspx?BoardNo=6398. 2018. 3. 20
송 욱. AI스피커 음악재생, 30-40대가 동요 주로 튼다. http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage. do?news_id=N1004657416 2018. 4. 1
이은지, 이지혜, 조민하, 성용준, 최세정 (2018). 혁신성과 기조절초점이 사물인터넷 제품 사용에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 19(1), pp. 67-91.
이혜민, & 김승인 (2014). 음성인식 기반의 모바일 지능형 개인비서 서비스 사용성 비교. 디지털디자인학연구, 14(1), 231-240.
이지영, 권예지, 고예나, 김은미, 나은영, & 박소라 (2016). 한국 청소년의 집단 따돌림에 대한 심층인터뷰 연구. 언론정보연구, 53(1), 267-309.
양정연, & 김학래 (2017). 아마존 알렉사. 정보과학회지, 35(8), 36-41.
양희태 (2017). 가상개인비서 기기의 소비자 수용에 관한 연구. 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 17(10), 179-189.
원동규, & 이상필 (2016). 인공지능과 제 4 차 산업혁명의 함의. ie 매거진, 23(2), 13-22.
조영신 (2016). 미디어의 입장에서 본 IoT를 둘러싼 경쟁상황과 방송 시장의 변화. 방송문화연구, 28(1), 87-120.
정한울, 2018. 한국일보. http://www.hankookilbo. com/News/Read/201805121719722894
정명섭. 구글 피차이 CEO “인공지능 발명, 과거 불(火) 발견보다 중요” http://www.kinews. net/news/articleView.html?idxno=115633. 2018. 3. 1
최영진. 글로벌 ICT 기업 스마트 스피커에 빠지다. 중앙시사매거진. http://jmagazine.joins. com/forbes/view/321901 2018. 8.10
전자정보연구센터 (2016). <인공지능 기술>과 관련한 설문조사 결과. 전자공학회지, 43 (6), 62-65.
홍은지, 조광수, & 최준호 (2017). 스마트홈 대화형 인터페이스의 의인화 효과. 한국 HCI 학회 논문지, 12(1), 15-23.
홍하나. 4차산업혁명 ‘육아’ 솔루션...AI 스피커, 스마트폰 중독 막는다. http://www. kinews.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=112695 2018. 4. 2
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Andrisani, D., Gaal, A. V., Gillette, D., & Steward, S. (2001). Making the most of interactivity online. Technical communication, 48(3), 309-323.
Bucy, E. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The information society, 20(5), 373-383.
Basow, S. A., & Silberg, N. T. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently?. Journal of educational psychology, 79(3), 308.
Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting In-depth Interviews: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In-depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Online.
Breazeal, C. (2003). Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(1-2), 119-155.
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project.
Colaizzi, P.F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319- 340.
DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical education, 40(4), 314-321.
Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and autonomous systems, 42(3-4), 177-190.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social cognition, 26(2), 143-155.
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and autonomous systems, 42(3-4), 143-166.
Forni, A. A., & van der Meulen, R. (2016). Gartner Says Worldwide Security Software Market Grew 3.7 Percent in 2015. Gartner.
Francois, D., Powell, S., & Dautenhahn, K. (2009). A long-term study of children with autism playing with a robotic pet: Taking inspirations from non-directive play therapy to encourage children’s proactivity and initiative-taking. Interaction Studies, 10(3), 324-373.
Gao, Y., & Koufaris, M. (2006). Perceptual antecedents of user attitude in electronic commerce. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 37(2-3), 42-50.
Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003, October). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 55-60). Ieee.
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y., De Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517-527.
Hancock, P. A., Hancock, G. M., & Warm, J. S. (2009). Individuation: The N = 1 revolution. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 10, 481-488.
Heeter, C. (2000). Interactivity in the context of designed experiences. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1(1), 3-14.
Ignatius, E., & Kokkonen, M. (2007). Factors contributing to verbal self-disclosure. Nordic Psychology, 59(4), 362-391.
Jung, Y., & Lee, K. M. (2004). Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. Proceedings of PRESENCE, 80-87.
Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 61-84.
Klamer, T., Allouch, S. B., & Heylen, D. (2010, June). “Adventures of Harvey”-Use, acceptance of and relationship building with a social robot in a domestic environment. In International Conference on Human-Robot Personal Relationship (pp. 74-82). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Klein, J., Moon, Y., & Picard, R. W. (2002). This computer responds to user frustration: Theory, design, and results. Interacting with computers, 14(2), 119-140.
Kidd, C. D., & Breazeal, C. (2008, September). Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2008. IROS 2008. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (pp. 3230-3235). IEEE.
Kirby, R., Forlizzi, J., & Simmons, R. (2010). Affective social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 58(3), 322-332.
Leite, I., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2013). Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2), 291-308.
Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(6), 669-678.
Moon, Y. (1998). Intimate self-disclosure exhanges: Using computers to build reciprocal relationships with consumers. Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Theoretical approaches to loneliness. Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, Research and therapy, 123-134.
Pereira, A., Leite, I., Mascarenhas, S., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2010, June). Using empathy to improve human-robot relationships. In International Conference on Human-Robot Personal Relationship (pp. 130-138). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International journal of nursing studies, 47(11), 1451-1458.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations; A Cross- Cultural Approach.
Ross, J. M. (2008). Moderators of trust and reliance across mul-tiple decision aids (Doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunivations.
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J. D., Hilaire, N., & Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 860-866.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 8(2), 217-242.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20(5), 391-394.
Turkle, S., Taggart, W., Kidd, C. D., & Dasté, O. (2006). Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science, 18(4), 347-361.
Wada, K., & Shibata, T. (2007). Living with seal robots-its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(5), 972- 980.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987). On understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design: A response to the reviews.
Zarate, M. A., & Smith, E. R. (1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social cognition, 8(2), 161-185.