Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
#ixlab
Interaction Lab
THROUGH THE (GOOGLE)
LOOKING GLASS
@bowmanspartan
@amperjay
@DKWesterman
#ICA15
HIGHLIGHTS
• Wearable technologies augment F2F with extra-
dyadic information that might violate expectations
In a randomi...
CYBORGS
“… popular culture is rife with [characters]
embodying integrations of the human and the
technological – the etymo...
TRANSPARENT TECHNOLOGY
“Clark (2003) argues that the least-
intrusive technologies – those that are
physically and sociall...
GLASS HALO OR GLASSHOLE?
“…the presence of a wearable technology – representing a
“cyborgic” interaction partner perceived...
THE SELF + THE INTERACTION
How might the introduction of Google Glass impact (RQ2) self-
perceptions and (RQ3) perceptions...
SAMPLE
• N = 78 (~ 21yrs, 71%
♀, 90% White)
• Dyads discussed “a
campus transportation
issue” [PRT]
• Google “Looking
Glas...
SAMPLE “LOOKING GLASS” POSTS
Control
partner
(n = 30)
“nonwearer”
(Glass
partner)
(n = 24)
t (df)* p-value
(two-tail)
Cohen’s d
(effect size r)
Partner...
Non-
wearers
(n = 24)
Google
Glass
Wearers
(n = 24)
t (df)* p-value
(two-tail)
Cohen’s d
(effect size r)
Partner Perceptio...
Representative language Glass-
Wear
No-
Wear
Ctrl F(2,71) η2
Closeness behaviors (analogous to partner perceptions; RQ1)
P...
DISCUSSION
“The introduction of wearable
technologies into FtF interactions calls
to question the role of communication
te...
FUTURE
“One reason Glass might
impact FtF interaction is that
the use of the device could
introduce unique
“channelesics” ...
FOR MORE INFORMATION
ND Bowman (Nicholas.Bowman@mail.wvu.edu)
JD Banks (jabanks@mail.wvu.edu)
DK Westerman (david.k.wester...
Through the Looking Glass (Self):  The impact of wearable technology on perceptions of face-to-face
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Through the Looking Glass (Self): The impact of wearable technology on perceptions of face-to-face

6,416 views

Published on

Advancements in wearable technology have allowed for social information to be inserted directly (albeit conspicuously) into face-to-face interactions. One example is Google Glass, worn similar to a pair of eyeglasses but with a digital display which can provide the wearer an augmented reality of extra-dyadic cues – such as social information (culled from social media programs) – about one’s conversation partners. Such interactions might violate expectancies of “normal” face-to-face interactions, in which both partners are assumed to have similar levels of social information about the other (as well as similar capabilities to retrieve and record this information). The current study simulated a fictitious “Looking Glass” program that (a) auto-detected (via facial recognition) one’s partner and (b) displayed that person’s last 12 social media posts on Glass. In a randomized case/control experiment, non-wearers were more likely to perceive Glass-wearers as physically attractive and socio-emotionally close, while feeling lower self-esteem and having higher mental and physical demand with the conversation. Open-ended data suggested Glass wearers to be less attentive to the conversation, and Glass-present conversations were less on-topic. These data hold implications for future application of and research into what we refer to as cyborgic face-to-face interactions: non-mediated yet technologically augmented social interactions.

Citation: Bowman, N. D., Banks, J. D., & Westerman, D. K. (2015, May). Through the Looking Glass: The impact of Google Glass on perceptions of face-to-face interaction. Paper to be presented at the International Communication Association, Puerto Rico.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Through the Looking Glass (Self): The impact of wearable technology on perceptions of face-to-face

  1. 1. #ixlab Interaction Lab THROUGH THE (GOOGLE) LOOKING GLASS @bowmanspartan @amperjay @DKWesterman #ICA15
  2. 2. HIGHLIGHTS • Wearable technologies augment F2F with extra- dyadic information that might violate expectations In a randomized case/control study: – Non-wearers perceived wearers as more physically attractive and interpersonally close; conversation as demanding, and reported lower state self-esteem – Wearers were less attentive to conversation – Glass conversations were less on-topic
  3. 3. CYBORGS “… popular culture is rife with [characters] embodying integrations of the human and the technological – the etymological “cybernetic organism” (see Clynes & Kline, 1960). However, cyborgs are more than fiction [as] humans are becoming more technicized and technologies more humanized (e.g., Bowker and Star, 2000; Haraway, 1991).” (p. 1)
  4. 4. TRANSPARENT TECHNOLOGY “Clark (2003) argues that the least- intrusive technologies – those that are physically and socially transparent and human-centered – are the most likely candidates to be incorporated into the modern cyborg. (p. 2)”
  5. 5. GLASS HALO OR GLASSHOLE? “…the presence of a wearable technology – representing a “cyborgic” interaction partner perceived as too disparate of an “other” – could be an expectancy violation.” (p. 8) RQ1: How might the introduction of Google Glass into a face-to- face conversation impact perceptions of the interaction partner? Augmented Sociality allows us to gather extra-dyadic information without breaking FtF modality; hyper-hypersonal communication leads to deeper meaning. Augmented Sociality introduces extra- dyadic information that requires additional processing, resulting in information transaction over interpersonal interaction.
  6. 6. THE SELF + THE INTERACTION How might the introduction of Google Glass impact (RQ2) self- perceptions and (RQ3) perceptions of conversation dynamics? The introduction of a cyborgic other that does not conform to [expected] mental models for social interaction could affect self-evaluation, both for device-wearers and for non- wearers whose interaction partners don the device.” (p. 9)
  7. 7. SAMPLE • N = 78 (~ 21yrs, 71% ♀, 90% White) • Dyads discussed “a campus transportation issue” [PRT] • Google “Looking Glass” randomly assigned Dependent Variables • Interpersonal attraction (McCroskey/McCain) • Partner perceptions (Sunnafrank) • PICS (Popovics et al) • SSES (Heatherton/Polivy) • Social Presence (Short et al) • Task Demand (NASA-TLX; Bowman et al.) • Emergent coding of open data (Corbin/Strauss)
  8. 8. SAMPLE “LOOKING GLASS” POSTS
  9. 9. Control partner (n = 30) “nonwearer” (Glass partner) (n = 24) t (df)* p-value (two-tail) Cohen’s d (effect size r) Partner Perceptions (RQ1) Social attractiveness 4.78 (.551) 4.78 (.595) .019 (52) .985 .005 (.003) Physical attractiveness 4.47 (1.11) 4.85 (.701) 1.44 (50) .156 .407 (.200) Perceived anthropomorphism 4.93 (.783) 4.98 (1.00) .233 (52) .816 .065 (.032) Future interactions with partner 4.28 (.731) 4.26 (.814) .091 (52) .928 .025 (.013) Self-Perceptions (RQ2) Perceived interpersonal distance 3.63 (1.33) 3.14 (1.28) 1.28 (46) .208 .377 (.185) Self-Esteem 3.93 (.798) 3.83 (.547) .543 (52) .590 .151 (.075) Conversation Dynamics (RQ3) Social presence 4.68 (.750) 4.62 (.821) .289 (52) .774 .080 (.040) Mentally Demanding 5.00 (4.26) 6.13 (4.54) .908 (48) .369 .262 (.130) Physically Demanding 1.20 (1.58) 2.29 (2.87) 1.63 (44) .111 .491 (.239) Annoying to Have 1.00 (1.72) 1.14 (1.53) .293 (43) .771 .090 (.044) Table 1. Impact of talking to a Glass-wearer or non- wearer on perceptions (effects greater than Cohen’s d = .200 bolded) KEYS • Glass-wearing partner was more attractive, less distant • Glass conversations were more demanding
  10. 10. Non- wearers (n = 24) Google Glass Wearers (n = 24) t (df)* p-value (two-tail) Cohen’s d (effect size r) Partner Perceptions (RQ1) Social attractiveness 4.78 (.595) 4.68 (.443) .651 (46) .518 .192 (.096) Physical attractiveness 4.85 (.701) 4.54 (.652) 1.59 (46) .119 .469 (.228) Perceived anthropomorphism 4.98 (1.00) 4.92 (.750) .261 (46) .795 .077 (.038) Future interactions with partner 4.26 (.814) 4.04 (.785) .933 (46) .356 .275 (.136) Self-Perceptions (RQ2) Perceived interpersonal distance 3.12 (1.28) 3.40 (1.14) .679 (39) .501 .217 (.108) Self-Esteem 3.83 (.547) 4.05 ( .410) 1.61 (46) .114 .475 (.231) Conversation Dynamics (RQ3) Social presence 4.62 (.821) 4.62 (.604) .000 (46) ~1.00 ~.000 Mentally Demanding 6.13 (4.53) 5.29 (3.26) .730 (45) .469 .218 (.108) Physically Demanding 2.29 (2.87) 2.75 (3.42) .472 (39) .639 .205 (.102) Annoying to Have 1.14 (1.53) 1.90 (3.18) .980 (39) .333 .313 (.155) Table 2. Impact of Google Glass wearing vs. non- wearing on perceptions of the other (effects greater than Cohen’s d = .200 bolded) KEYS • Glass-wearing partner was more attractive, less distant • Glass-wearers felt more distant, were more annoyed • Non-wearers had lower state self-esteem
  11. 11. Representative language Glass- Wear No- Wear Ctrl F(2,71) η2 Closeness behaviors (analogous to partner perceptions; RQ1) Physical Proximity We were a good distance apart. (+) 47.8% 8n 42.9% 6n,5+ 36.7% 9n,3+ .328 .009 Discrete Social Behaviors He did not disclose any personal information. (n) 17.9% 5+ 28.6% 2n,2+ 30.0% 4n,3+, 2- .592 .016 Broad Social Behaviors We had a nice conversation. (+) 8.70% 4+,1- 33.3% 1n,2+ 33.3% 3n,6+, 2- 2.60 .068 Closeness feelings (analogous to self-perceptions; RQ2) Similarity with Partner Since we go to the same school, we experienced the same issues. (n) 34.8% 4n,3+, 1- 14.9% 1+,2- 50.0% 11n,3 +,1- 3.66 .093 Conversational Comfort At times the silence was awkward for me. (-) 47.8% 5n,5+, 1- 52.4% 5n,2+, 4- 23.3% 3n,4+ 2.81 .073 Quality of Conversation It was a nice, easy conversation. (+) 30.4% 1n,5+ 38.1% 1n,7+ 33.3% 1n,9+ .141 .004 Conversation context (analogous to conversation dynamics; RQ3) Physical Environment/ Context The table between us kept us from being too close. (n) 21.7% 3n,1+, 1- 9.52% 1n,1- 23.3% 7n .839 .023 Subject-matter mentions We talked about what could be improved with the train system. (n) 26.1% 6n 14.3% 2n,1- 43.3% 10n,3- 2.68 .070 Table 3. List of non- exclusive emergent themes from open- ended participant responses. KEYS • Glass-wearers reference fewer social behaviors • Non-wearers made few references to similarity • Non-wearers were most likely to reference discomfort • Control group was most on- point
  12. 12. DISCUSSION “The introduction of wearable technologies into FtF interactions calls to question the role of communication technology into spaces long considered “free” of mediation.” (p. 24) “…the path to relative interpersonal closeness is different for each – for non-wearers as a function of attractiveness, novelty, and engagement, and for Glass-wearers as a function of what we affectionately call the “cool kid effect” as they experienced a sort of ego-boost from awareness of their own novelty. In these ways, not only may humans be in transition as they augment human interaction (Giordano, 2013), so may sociality be in transition.” (p. 26)
  13. 13. FUTURE “One reason Glass might impact FtF interaction is that the use of the device could introduce unique “channelesics” into the conversation – that is, nonverbal-like cues interpreted by the recipient of a message (O’Sullivan, 2004).” (p. 26). Since the “Glasshole” effect really didn’t manifest in our study, what are some of the channelesics that YOU think are associated with wearables? Let us know at @bowmanspartan, @amperjay, & @DKWesterman! #ICA15
  14. 14. FOR MORE INFORMATION ND Bowman (Nicholas.Bowman@mail.wvu.edu) JD Banks (jabanks@mail.wvu.edu) DK Westerman (david.k.westerman@ndsu.edu) http://comm.wvu.edu/ fs/research/lab #ixlab Interaction Lab

×