skip to main content
research-article

Effects of facial similarity on user responses to embodied agents

Authors:
Henriette C. Van Vugt
VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
Jeremy N. Bailenson
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
,
Johan F. Hoorn
VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
,
Elly A. Konijn
VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Authors Info & Claims
Published: 21 May 2008 Publication History

Abstract

We investigated the effects of facial similarity between users and embodied agents under different experimental conditions. Sixty-four undergraduates interacted with two different embodied agents: in one case the agent was designed to look somewhat similar to the user, and in the other case the agent was designed to look dissimilar. We varied between subjects how helpful the agent was for a given task. Results showed that the facial similarity manipulation sometimes affected participants' responses, even though they did not consciously detect the similarity. Specifically, when the agent was helpful, facial similarity increased participantsi ratings of involvement. However, when exposed to unhelpful agents, male participants had negative responses to the similar-looking agent compared to the dissimilar one. These results suggest that using facially similar embodied agents has a potential large downside if that embodied agent is perceived to be unhelpful.

References

[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. John Wiley 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--58.
[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. and Marks, 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 undergraduate mathematics. 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&excel; 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.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Collaborating with my DoppelgängerProceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques10.1145/36512887:1(1-23)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
  • (2024)Transforming Sedentary Lifestyles: The impact of remote VR and flat-screen interventions on affective attitudes towards physical exertion, guided by avatar or human trainersPsychology of Sport and Exercise10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102740(102740)Online publication date: Sep-2024
  • (2023)Comparing Subjective Similarity of Automated Driving Styles to Objective Distance-Based SimilarityHuman Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society10.1177/0018720822114212666:5(1545-1563)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Effects of facial similarity on user responses to embodied agents

    Recommendations

    Reviews

    Angelica de Antonio

    The study of the effects of similarity and dissimilarity to other people is a topic of research that has crossed the line from real to virtual. This paper describes one of these investigations that explores the subtle and sometimes unexpected side effects of using embodied agents who resemble human users in some respects. The research was conducted with an experimental design aimed at discovering the combined effects of facial similarity to the user and the affordances (possibilities for action) offered by a software agent-the two manipulated independent variables-on three dependent variables: involvement with the agent, distance to the agent, and intentions of use. Two additional variables were also studied as mediators: relevance and valence. Regarding affordances, the agent was programmed to be either helpful or obstructive regarding reaching the user's goals. The study revealed as one of its most significant conclusions that male (but not female) users react more negatively to obstructive agents when these are similar to the user than when they are dissimilar. This finding leads the authors to warn designers about the possible risks of using facial similarity in embodied agents. The paper is clear and very well structured, describing every detail of the experimental design, its statistical results, and their interpretation. It requires readers to be acquainted with the terminology and methods of experimental research. Both researchers and designers will benefit from reading this paper. Online Computing Reviews Service

    Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

    Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
    ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 17, Issue 2
    May 2010
    129 pages
    ISSN:1073-0516
    EISSN:1557-7325
    DOI:10.1145/1746259
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Accepted: 01 September 2009
    Published: 21 May 2008
    Revised: 01 February 2008
    Received: 01 August 2007
    Published in TOCHI Volume 17, Issue 2

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. 3D morphing
    2. Facial similarity
    3. I-PEFiC model
    4. engagement with embodied agents
    5. use intentions

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

    Funding Sources

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)92
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
    Reflects downloads up to 16 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Collaborating with my DoppelgängerProceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques10.1145/36512887:1(1-23)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
    • (2024)Transforming Sedentary Lifestyles: The impact of remote VR and flat-screen interventions on affective attitudes towards physical exertion, guided by avatar or human trainersPsychology of Sport and Exercise10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102740(102740)Online publication date: Sep-2024
    • (2023)Comparing Subjective Similarity of Automated Driving Styles to Objective Distance-Based SimilarityHuman Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society10.1177/0018720822114212666:5(1545-1563)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
    • (2023)"A feeling of déjà vu": The Effects of Avatar Appearance-Similarity on Persuasiveness in Social Virtual RealityProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36101677:CSCW2(1-31)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
    • (2023)Investigating Effects of Facial Self-Similarity Levels on the Impression of Virtual Agents in Serious/Non-Serious ContextsProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 202310.1145/3582700.3582721(221-230)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2023
    • (2023)Do We Trust Embodied Agents who Look Like us?2023 International Conference on Intelligent Metaverse Technologies & Applications (iMETA)10.1109/iMETA59369.2023.10294444(01-07)Online publication date: 18-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Exploring the Influence of Self-Avatar Similarity on Human-Robot Trust2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309431(1593-1599)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
    • (2023)MetaFi++: WiFi-Enabled Transformer-Based Human Pose Estimation for Metaverse Avatar SimulationIEEE Internet of Things Journal10.1109/JIOT.2023.326294010:16(14128-14136)Online publication date: 15-Aug-2023
    • (2023)A principlist-based study of the ethical design and acceptability of artificial social agentsInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102980172(102980)Online publication date: Apr-2023
    • (2023)Effects of Self-avatar Similarity on User Trusting Behavior in Virtual Reality EnvironmentHCI International 2023 Posters10.1007/978-3-031-36004-6_43(313-316)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media

    Get Access

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    References

    References

    [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. John Wiley 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--58.
    [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. and Marks, 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 undergraduate mathematics. 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&excel; 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.