Digital chameleons

295 views

Published on

chameleon effect

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Digital chameleons

  1. 1. Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (2005) Digital Chameleons Automatic Assimilation of Nonverbal Gestures in Immersive Virtual Environments Eun Joung Cho
  2. 2. Look at these pictures.
  3. 3. And these . . .
  4. 4. Were you smiling? Did you feel sad?
  5. 5. Motor mimicry People change their own face similar to their interactant. e.g. Our face is distorted when the other is in pain. Chameleon effect Mimicked behaviours lead to interactants’ favor.
  6. 6. Chameleon effect Synchronization • Accents • likable • Speech patterns • prosocial behaviour • Syntax • rapport persists • General mood
  7. 7. A salad, B main dish, and A salad, C dessert B main dish, and …thank C dessert, please you, ma’am. … thank you, ma’am. (van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, & van Knippenberg, 2003)
  8. 8. Because the information is all digital 1. Frequency (how many times) 2. Thoroughness (how many types of gestures) 3. Intensity (exact mirror or only an approximation) Using mimicry in Virtual world 1. Strategic conversation with others using avatar. 2. Sociable computer system.
  9. 9. 2005 Digital Chameleons 2008 Detecting digital chameleons 2010 Effects of Facial Similarity on User Responses to Embodied Agents Experiment video clip
  10. 10. 2005 Digital Chameleons IV • Participant’s gender • Agent’s gender • Agent’s behaviour (mimic or recorded) DV • agent’s social presence (realistic) • agreement (agent’s persuasion) • impression of the agent (positive)
  11. 11. 1. 2. Over 28˚, participants cannot see the avatar. • Female : mimic -> do not • Male : recorded -> do
  12. 12. 2008 Detecting digital chameleons IV Agent’s behaviour • Mirror-mimic (exactly mirrored) • Congruent-mimic (reverse-mirrored) • Axis-switch (mirrored along a different axis) DV • trustworthiness • warmth • information • agreement
  13. 13. • Participants rated the presenter as less trustworthy when they detected the mimic. less friendly (warmth) • Participants were more likely to detect the mirror-mimic condition than others.
  14. 14. 2010 Effects of Facial Similarity on User Responses to Embodied Agents IV • Designed similarity (facial similar vs. dissimilar) • Designed affordance (aid vs. obstacle) DV • Involvement (How much do you feel connected to X?) • Distance (How much does X leave you with cold feelings?) • UseIntention (How much do you want to use X again?)
  15. 15. • Similar – dissimilar : no difference • Aid – obstacle : difference On average participants feel more using intention with an aiding agent that was facially similar. higher involvement with an aiding agent. less distant with an aiding agent.
  16. 16. To sum up, Mimicked behaviour  more social presence / better impression But, If the users notice the mimicry, it does not work And, The users feel positive when just the agents are helpful.
  17. 17. Thank you Eun Joung Cho

×