Effects of facial similarity on user responses to embodied agents

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Van Vugt, Henriette C ^a   Bailenson, Jeremy N ^b   Hoorn, Johan F ^c   Konijn, Elly A ^c  

^a PHILIPS RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (Netherlands)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

3D morphing; Engagement with embodied agents; Facial similarity; I PEFiC model; Use intentions

Indexed keywords

3D MORPHING; EMBODIED AGENT; ENGAGEMENT WITH EMBODIED AGENTS; EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS;

THREE DIMENSIONAL;

EID: 77952904914     PISSN: 10730516     EISSN: 15577325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1746259.1746261     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. AJZEN, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organiz. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 50, 179-211.
2. AL-NATOUR, S., BENBASAT, I., AND CENFETELLI, R. T. 2005. The role of similarity in e-commerce interactions: The case of online shopping assistants. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Workshop on HCI Research in MIS.
3. AMES, D. R. 2004. Inside the mind readers toolkit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 87, 340-353.
4. AYLETT, R. S., PAIVA, A.,WOODS, S.,HALL, L., AND ZOLL, C. 2008. Expressive characters in antibullying education. In Animating Expressive Characters for Social Interaction. John Benjamins.
5. BAILENSON, J. N., BEALL, A. C., BLASCOVICH, J., AND REX, C. 2004. Examining virtual busts: Are photogrammetrically generated head models effective for person identification? Presence: Teleop. Virt. Environ. 13, 4, 416-427.
6. BAILENSON, J. N., IYENGAR, S., YEE, N., AND COLLINS, N. 2008. Facial similarity between voters and candidates causes influence. Pub. Opin. Quart.
7. BAILENSON, J. N., REX, C., BEALL, A. C., AND LOOMIS, J. M. 2001. Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence: Teleop. Virt. Environ. 10, 6, 583-598.
8. BAILENSON, J. N., SWINTH, K. R., HOYT, C. L., PERSKY, S., DIMOV, A., AND BLASCOVICH, J. 2005. The independent and interactive effects of embodied agent appearance and behavior on selfreport, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleop. Virt. Environ. 14, 4.
9. BARON, R. M. AND KENNY, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research-conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 51, 6, 173-1182.
10. BEYER, S. 1990. Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 59, 5, 960-970.
11. BEYER, S. AND BOWDEN, E. M. 1997. Gender differences in self-perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of accuracy and bias. Person. Soc. Psych. Bull. 23, 157-172.
12. BLUMLER, J. AND KATZ, E. 1974. The Uses of Mass Communications. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
13. BREHM, J. W. AND MIRON, A. M. 2006. Can the simultaneous experience of opposing emotions really occur? Motiv. Emot. 30, 1, 13-30.
14. BROCK, T. C. 1965. Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 1, 650-654.
15. BYRNE, D. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press, New York.
16. CACIOPPO, J. T. AND BERNTSON, G. G. 1994. Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psych. Bull. 115, 401-423.
17. CARD, S., MORAN, T., AND NEWELL, A. 1983. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
18. CARLI, L. L. AND EAGLY, A. H. 1999. Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. In Powell, G., editor, Handbook of Gender and Work, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 203-280.
19. CATRAMBONE, R., STASKO, J., AND XIAO, J. 2004. ECA as user interface paradigm. In Ruttkay, Z. and Pelachaud, C., Eds., From Brows to Trust: Evaluating Embodied Conversational Agents, Dordrecht, Boston, MA, 239-270.
20. CHAIKEN, S. 1979. Communicator attractiveness and persuasion. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 37, 1387-1397.
21. CIALDINI, R. B. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice 4th Ed. Harper Collins, New York.
22. COOPER, A.,REIMANN, R., AND CRONIN, D. 2007. About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
23. CYPHER, A. 1986. The structure of user's activities. In Norman, D. A. and Draper, S., Eds., User-Centered Systems Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 243-263.
24. DAVIS, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13, 3, 319-339.
25. DE BRUINE, L. M. 2002. Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc. Royal Soc. London B, 269, 1307-1312.
26. DE BRUINE, L. M. 2004a. Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces. Proc. Royal Soc. London B, 271, 2085-2090.
27. DE BRUINE, L. M. 2004b. Resemblance to self increases the appeal of child faces to both men and women. Evol. Hum. Behav., 25, 142-154.
28. DIENER, E. AND EMMONS, R. A. 1985. The independence of positive and negative affect. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 47, 5, 1105-1117.
29. DILLMAN, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nd Ed. JohnWiley and Sons, New York.
30. DRYER, D. C. 1999. Getting personal with computers: How to design personalities for agents. Appl. Artif. Intell. 13, 3, 273-295.
31. EIDELMAN, S. AND BIERNAT, M. 2003. Derogating black sheep: Individual or group protection? J. Exper. Soc. Psych. 39, 602-609.
32. FALK, J. H. AND DIERKING, L. D. 2000. Learning from Museums, Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
33. FESTINGER, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7, 117-140.
34. FISHBEIN, M. AND AJZEN, L. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
35. FRIJDA, N. 1988. The laws of emotion. Amer. Psych. 43, 5, 349-358
36. FRIJDA, N. H. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
37. GIBSON, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin.
38. GOETHALS, G. R. AND DARLEY, J. 1977. Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. In Suls, J. M. and Miller, R. L., Eds., Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Hemisphere, 86-109.
39. GOLLWITZER, P. M. AND BARGH, J. A. 1996. The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior. Guilford, New York.
40. GRATCH, J., YOUNG, M., AYLETT, R., BALLIN, D., AND OLIVIER, P. Eds. 2006. In Proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA'06), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol.4133, Springer.
41. GUADAGNO, R. E., BLASCOVICH, J., BAILENSON, J. N., AND MCCALL, C. 2007. Virtual humans and persuasion: the effects of agency and behavioural realism. Media Psych. 10, 1-22.
42. GUADAGNO, R. E. AND CIALDINI, R. B. 2007. Persuade him by email, but see her in person: Online persuasion revisited. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 999-1015.
43. GULZ, A. AND HAAKE, M. 2006. Design of animated pedagogical agents-a look at their look. Int. J. Man-Machine Stud. 64, 4, 322-339.
44. HEIDER, F. 1946. Attitudes and cognitive organization. J. Psych. 21, 107-112.
45. HILL, K. T. AND DUSEK, J. B. 1969. Children's achievement expectations as a function of social reinforcement, sex of s, and test anxiety. Child Devel. 40, 547-557.
46. HINSZ, V. B. 1989. Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. J. Soc. Person. Relat. 6, 223-229.
47. HOUSE, W. C. AND PEMEY, V. 1974. Valence of expected and unexpected outcomes as a function of locus of goal and type of expectancy. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 29, 454-463.
48. JOHNSON, W. L., RICKEL, J., AND LESTER, J. 2000. Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Ed. 11, 47-78.
49. KAPTELININ, V. AND NARDI, B. A. 2006. Acting with Technology. Activity Theory and Interaction Design Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
50. KLOHNEN, E. C. AND LUO, S. 2003. Interpersonal attraction and personality: what is attractive: self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security? J. Soc. Person. Psych. 85, 4, 709-722.
51. KONIJN, E. A. AND HOOM, J. F. 2005. Some like it bad. Testing a model for perceiving and experiencing fictional characters. Media Psych. 7, 2, 107-144.
52. KONIJN, E. A. AND BUSHMAN, B. B. 2007. World leaders as movie characters? Perceptions of George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. Media Psych. 9, 157-177.
53. KONIJN, E. A. AND VAN VUGT, H. C. 2008. Emotions in mediated interpersonal communication: Toward modeling emotion in virtual humans. In Mediated Interpersonal Communication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 100-130.
54. KROSNICK, J. A. AND FABRIGAR, L. R. 2007. The Handbook of Questionnaire Design. Oxford University Press, New York. To appear.
55. KRUGLANSKI, A. W. AND MAYSELESS, O. 1990. Classic and current social comparison research: expanding the perspective. Psych. Bull. 108, 2, 195-208.
56. LANGLOIS, J. H., RITTER, J. M., ROGGMAN, L. A., AND VAUGHN, L. S. 1991. Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Devel. Psych. 27, 79-84.
57. LATTIN, J., CARROLL, J. D., AND GREEN, P. E. 2003. Analyzing Multivariate Data. Duxbury, MA.
58. LAZARUS, R. S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
59. LEE, E.-J. 2003. Effects of "gender" of the computer on informational social influence: the moderating role of task type. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 58, 4, 347-362.
60. LEE, E.-J. 2007. Wired for gender: Experientiality and gender-stereotyping in computermediated communication. Media Psych. 10, 2, 182-210.
61. LEONTIEV, A. 1978. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (Original work published in Russian in 1975.)
62. LERNER, M. J. AND AGAR, E. 1972. The consequence of perceived similarity: Attraction and rejection, approach and avoidance. J. Exper. Resear. Person. 6, 69-75.
63. LEVINGER, G. AND BREEDLOVE, J. 1966. Interpersonal attraction and agreement: a study of marriage partners. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 3, 367-372.
64. LI, 1., FORLIZZI, J., DEY, A., AND KIESLER, S. 2007. My agent as myself or another: effects on credibility and listening to advice. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI'07), ACM, New York, NY, 194-208.
65. LINDGAARD, G. AND DUDEK, C. 2003. What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interact. Comput. 15, 3, 429-452.
66. MCGRENERE, J. AND HO, W. 2000. Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface, 179-186.
67. MILLER, N. ANDMARKS, G. 1982. Assumed similarity between self and other: Effect of expectation of future interaction with that other. Soc. Psych. Quart. 45, 100-105.
68. MORENO, R., AND FLOWERDAY, T. 2006. Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemp. Ed. Psych. 31, 2, 186-207.
69. MOUNDRIDOU, M. AND VIRVOU, M. 2002. Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. J. Comput-Assist. Learn. 18, 3, 253-261.
70. MUMFORD,M. D. 1983. Social comparison theory and the evaluation of peer evaluations: A review and some applied implications. Personnel Psych. 36, 4, 867-881.
71. MURA,R. 1987. Sex-related differences in expectations of success in undergraduatemathematics. J. Resear. Math. Ed. 18, 1, 15-24.
72. NASS, C., KIM, E.-Y., AND LEE, E.-J. 1998. When my face is the interface: an experimental comparison of interacting with one's own face or someone else's face. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'98). ACM Press, New York, NY, 148-154.
73. NASS, C. AND MOON, Y. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. J. Soc. Iss. 56, 1, 81-103.
74. NETER, J., WASSERMAN, W., AND KUTNER, M. H. 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models 3rd Ed. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
75. NORMAN, D. A. 1988. The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books.
76. NOWAK, K. L. AND RAUH, C. 2005. The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. J. Comput.-Mediated Com. 11, 1, article 8.
77. OLSON, I. R. AND MARSHUETZ, C. 2005. Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5, 4, 498-502.
78. PAYNE, C. AND JAFFE, K. 2005. Self seeks like: Many humans choose their dog-pets following rules used for assortative mating. J. Ethol. 23, 15-18.
79. PERSON, N. P. AND GRAESSER, A. C. 2006. Pedagogical agents and tutors. In Guthrie, J. W., Ed., Encyclopedia of Education, Macmillan, New York, 1169-1172.
80. PRATT, J. A.,HAUSER, K.,UGRAY, Z., AND PATTERSON, O. 2007. Looking at human-computer interface design: Effects of ethnicity in computer agents. Interact. Comput. 19, 512-523.
81. PREACHER, K. J. AND HAYES, A. F. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Resear. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 36, 4, 717-731
82. PREECE, J., ROGERS, Y., AND SHARP, H. 2002. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
83. PRIESTER, J. R. AND PETTY, R. E. 2001. Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecendents of evaluative tension. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 80, 19-34.
84. RATAN, R. AND BAILENSON, J. N. 2007. Similarity and persuasion in immersive virtual reality. Panel presentation to the Communication and Technology Commission of ICA.
85. REEVES, B. AND NASS, C. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Televisions and New Media like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
86. REEVES, T. C. AND RAVEN, A. 2002. Performance-support systems. In Heimo H., Adelsberger, H. H., Collis, B., and Pawlowski, J. M., Eds., Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training, Springer, 93-110.
87. RINK, F. AND ELLEMERS, N. 2006. What can you expect? The influence of gender diversity in dyads on work goal expectancies and subsequent work commitment. Group Process. Intergroup Rel. 9, 4, 577-588.
88. RUSSELL, J. A. AND CARROLL, J. M. 1999. On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psych. Bull. 125, 1, 3-30.
89. RUTTKAY, Z., DORMANN, C., AND NOOT, H. 2004. Embodied conversational agents on a common ground. A framework for design and evaluation. In Ruttkay, Z. and Pelachaud, C., Eds., From Brows to Trust: Evaluating Embodied Conversational Agents, Dordrecht, Boston, MA, 27-66.
90. SAFFER, D. 2007. Designing for Interaction. Creating Smart Applications and Clever Devices. New Riders.
91. SANGRADOR, J. L. AND YELA, C. 2000. What is beautiful is loved: Physical attractiveness in love relationships on a representative sample. Soc. Behav. Person. 28, 3, 207-218.
92. SERGENT, J. AND SIGNORET, J.-L. 1992. Functional and anatomical decomposition of face processing: Evidence from prosopagnosia and PET study of normal subjects. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London Biol. 335, 55-62.
93. SILVIA, P. J., GRAHAM, J. S., AND HAWLEY, C. N. 2005. Changing attitudes towards prison reform: effects of similarity to prisoners on attraction and rejection. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 35, 2, 248-258.
94. TAYLOR, S. E. AND METTEE, D. R. 1971. When similarity breeds contempt. J. Person. Soc. Psych. 20, 1, 75-81.
95. TESSER, A. 1988. Towards a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In Berkowitz, L., Ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol.21, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 181-227.
96. VAN VUGT, H. C., HOORN, J. F., KONIJN, E. A., AND DE BIE DIMITRIADOU, A. 2006. Affective affordances: Improving interface character engagement through interaction. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64, 9, 874-888.
97. VAN VUGT, H. C., KONIJN, E. A., HOORN, J. F., KEUR, 1., AND ELIENS, A. 2007. Realism is not all! User engagement with task-related interface characters. Interact. Comput. 19, 2, 267-280.
98. VENKATESH, V. 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inform. Syst. Resear. 11, 4, 342-365.
99. VENKATESH, V.,MORRIS, M. G., DAVIS, G. B., AND DAVIS, F. D. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 27, 3, 425-478.
100. YEE, N. AND BAILENSON, J. N. 2007. The Proteus effect: Self transformations in virtual reality. Hum. Comm. Resear. 33, 271-290.