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.

1. #ixlab
Interaction Lab
THROUGH THE (GOOGLE)
LOOKING GLASS
@bowmanspartan
@amperjay
@DKWesterman
#ICA15

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)

9. SAMPLE “LOOKING GLASS” POSTS

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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