The effect of image features on judgments of homophily, credibility, and intention to use as avatars in future interactions

Media Psychology

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 50-76

  Nowak, Kristine L ^a,b   Hamilton, Mark A ^a   Hammond, Chelsea C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 62349127446     PISSN: 15213269     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15213260802669433     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Asch, S. (1958). The metaphor: A psychological inquiry. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 86-94). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and Implicit Personality Theory: Toward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5(2), 219-248.
3. Bahk, C. M. (2001). Drench effects of media portrayal of fatal virus disease on health locus of control belief. Health Communication, 13(2), 187-204.
4. Bailenson, J. N., Swinth, K. R., Hoyt, C. L., Persky, S., Dimov, A., & Blascovich, J. (2005). The independent and interactive effects of embodied agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14, 379-393.
5. Barret, J. L. (1997). Anthropomorphism, intentional agents, and conceptualizing God. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
6. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender Schema Theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychology Review, 88(4), 354-364.
7. Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563-576.
8. Brashers, D. E., & Jackson, S. (1999). Changing conceptions of message effects: A 25-year review. Human Communication Research, 25, 457-477.
9. Breazeal, C. (2003). Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(1-2), 119-155.
10. Busselle, R. (2001). Television exposure, perceived realism, and exemplar accessibility in the social judgment process. Media Psychology, 3, 43-67.
11. Busselle, R., & Greenburg, B. (2000). The nature of television realism judgments: A reevaluation of their conceptualization and measurement. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2-3), 249-268.
12. Busselle, R., Ryabovolova, A., & Wilson, B. (2004). Ruining a good story: Cultivation, perceived realism and narrative. Communications, 29, 365-378.
13. Cherny, L. (1994). Gender differences in text-based virtual reality. In M. Bucholtz et al. (Eds.), Cultural performances: Proceedings of the third Berkeley women and language conference (pp. 102-15). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, University of California.
14. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins C. A. (1995). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 118-143.
15. Cornetto, K., & Nowak, K. L. (2006). Sex categorization and usernames in CMC; examining people's perceptions and accuracy. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9(4), 377-387.
16. DiSalvo, C., & Gemperle, F. (2003, June). From seduction to fulfillment: the use of anthropomorphic form in design. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, Pittsburgh, PA.
17. Duffy, B. R. (2002). "Anthropomorphism and Robotics." The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour-AISB 2002, April 3-5, 2002, Imperial College, England.
18. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
19. Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 6(1). Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/ eastin.html
20. Eddy, T. J., Gallup, G. G., & Povinelli, D. J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 87-101.
21. Fiore, A. T., & Donath, J. S. (2005, April). Homophily in online dating: When do you like someone like yourself. CHI [Computer Human Interaction], April 2-7, Portland, OR.
22. Garau, M., Slater, M., Vinayagamoorthy, V., Brogni, A., Steed, A., & Sasse, M. A. (2003). The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment. Paper presented at the CHI 2003, April 5-10, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
23. Guttman, L. (1941). The quantification of a class of attributes: A theory and method of scale construction. In The prediction of personal adjustment (with P. Horst and others) (pp. 319-348). New York: Social Science Research Council.
24. Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram snalysis. In S. A. Stouffer et al. (Eds.), Measurement and prediction (pp. 60-90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Hall, A. (2003). Reading realism: Audiences' evaluations of the reality of media texts. Journal of Communication, 624-641.
26. Hamilton, M. (1997). The phase interfaced omnistructure underlying the processing of persuasive messages. In F. J. Boster & G. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in communication science (pp. 1-38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
27. Hamilton, M. A. (1998). Message variables that mediate and moderate the effect of equivocal language on source credibility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 109-143.
28. Hamilton, M. A. (2007). Motivation, social context, and cognitive processing as evolving concepts in persuasion theory. In D. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. Monohan (Eds.), Social cognition and communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Hamilton, M. A., & Hunter, J. E. (1985). Analyzing utterances as the observational unit. Human Communication Research, 12, 285-294.
30. Hamilton, M. A., Hunter, J. E., & Boster, F. J. (1993). The elaboration likelihood model as a theory of attitude formation: A mathematical analysis. Communication Theory, 3, 50-65.
31. Hamilton, M. A., & Nowak, K. J. (2005). Information systems concepts across two decades: An empirical analysis of trends in theory, methods, process, and research domains. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 529-553.
32. Hamilton, M. A., & Stewart, B. (1993). Extending an information processing model of language intensity effects. Communication Quarterly, 41, 231-246.
33. Hamilton, M. A., & Thompson, W. (1994). Testing an information processing account of message intensity effects. World Communication, 23, 1-14.
34. Heider, F. (1958). Perceiving the other person. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 22-26). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
35. Herring, S. C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Journal, 18(1). Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://www.cpsr.org/publications/ newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring.html
36. Hunter, J. E., & Hamilton, M. A. (1998). Meta-analysis of controlled message designs. In M. Allen & R. W. Priess (Eds.) Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (29-52). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
37. Hunter, J. E., Hamilton, M. A., & Allen, M. (1989). The design and analysis of language experiments. Communication Monographs, 56, 341-363.
38. Jackson, S., & Brashers, D. E. (1994). Random factors in ANOVA. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Jackson, S., & Jacobs S. (1983) Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research 9(2), 169-191.
40. Kaplowitz, S. A., & Fink, E. L., with Mulcrone, J., Atkin D., & Dabil, S. (1991). Disentangling the effects of discrepant and disconfirming information. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(3), 191-207.
41. Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204.
42. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78.
43. Kennedy, J. S. (1992) The new anthropomorphism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Koda, T., & Maes, P. (1996). Agents with faces: The effects of personification. Paper resented at the Human-Computer Interaction 1996, London, UK.
45. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Lee, E. (2004). Effects of gendered character representation on person perception and informational social influence in computer-mediated communication, Computers in Human Behavior, 20(6), 779-799.
47. Maddock, S., Edge, J., & Sanchez, M. (2005, September). Movement realism in computer facial animation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Human-Animated Characters Interaction ACI 2005, Edinburgh, UK.
48. McCroskey, J. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33(1), 65-72.
49. McCroskey, J., & McCain, T. A. (1972). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Paper presented at the Convention of the Western Speech Communication Association, Honolulu, HI.
50. McCroskey, J., Richmond, V., & Daly, J. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(4), 323-332.
51. McCroskey, J., & Young, T. (1981). Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. The central state speech journal, 32, 24-34.
52. McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change: An information-processing theory. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 171-196). New York: Academic Press.
53. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
54. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.
55. Nass, C., Lombard, M., Henriksen, L. & Steuer, J. (1995). Anthropocentrism and Computers. Behaviour and Information Technology, 14(4), 229-238.
56. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.
57. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E., & Reeder, H. (1993). Anthropomorphism, agency, & ethopoea: Computers as social actors. Paper presented at the InterChi '93, April 24-29, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
58. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
59. Noske, B. (1989). Humans and other animals: Beyond the boundaries of anthropology. London: Pluto Press.
60. Nowak, K. (2003). Sex categorization in CMC: Exploring the utopian promise. Media Psychology, 5(1), 83-104.
61. Nowak, K. L. (2004). The influence of anthropomorphism and agency on social judgment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9(2). Retrieved September 5, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana. edu/vol9/issue2/nowak.html
62. Nowak, K., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481-494.
63. Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2005). The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1).
64. Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2008) Examining the perception process of avatar anthropomorphism, credibility and androgyny in static and chat context. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1473-1493.
65. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
66. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
67. Pina, A., Cerezo, E., & Serón, F. J. (2000). Computer animation: from avatars to unrestricted autonomous actors (A survey on replication and modeling mechanisms). Computers & Graphics, 24, 297-311.
68. Press, A. (1989). Class and gender in the hegemonic process: Class difference in women's perceptions of television realism and identification with television characters. Media, Culture, and Society, 11, 229-251.
69. Ramirez, A., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Informationseeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer mediated communication toward a conceptual model. Human Communication Research, 28(2), 213-228.
70. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
71. Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach. In P. Ekman and K. Scherer (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293-316). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
72. Seyama, J., & Nagayama, R. S. (2007). The uncanny valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence, 16(4), 337-351.
73. Shapiro, K. (1997). A phenomenological approach to the study of nonhuman animals (pp. 273-291). In Mitchell, R., Thompson, N., and Miles, H. (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
74. Shapiro, K. J. (1997). A phenomenological approach to the study of nonhuman animals. In R. W. Mitchell et al. (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp. 92-101). New York: SUNY Press.
75. Shapiro, M., & Chock, T. (2003). Psychological processes in perceiving reality. Media Psychology, 5, 163-198.
76. Sheehan, J. (1991). Introduction: humans and machines. In J. Sheehan & M. Sosna (Eds.), The boundaries of humanity: humans, animals, machines (pp. 135-141). Berkeley: University of California Press.
77. Sherman, R., End, C., Kraan, E., Cole, A., Campbell, J., Klausner, J., & Birchmeier, Z. (2001). Metaperception in cyberspace. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(1), 123-129.
78. Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 75(1), pp. 57-67.
79. Taylor, T. L. (2002). Living digitally: Embodiment in virtual worlds. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars; presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 40-62). London: Springer-Verlag.
80. Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828-846.
81. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 13-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
82. Wexelblat, A. (1998, March 14). Don't make that face: A report on anthropomorphizing an interface. Intelligent Environments, AAAI Technical Report SS-98-02. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
83. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Rickertsen, K. (2007) A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. Paper presented at CHI [Computer Human Interaction] 2007, April 28-May 3, 2003, San Jose, CA.