Digital chameleons

2,139 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,139
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Digital chameleons

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

×