Advertisement

I Didn’t Know That Virtual Agent Was Angry at Me: Investigating Effects of Gaze Direction on Emotion Recognition and Evaluation

  • Peter A. M. Ruijten
  • Cees J. H. Midden
  • Jaap Ham
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7822)

Abstract

Previous research has shown a link between gazing behavior and type of emotion felt. It appears that approach-oriented emotions are better perceived in combination with a direct gaze, whereas avoidance-oriented emotions are better perceived in combination with an averted gaze. In this study, we investigate whether this effect can be applied to persuasive social agents. We hypothesized that an approach-oriented emotion is more credible when combined with a direct gaze, whereas an avoidance-oriented emotion is more credible when combined with an averted gaze. This was tested with both an implicit categorization task and an explicit evaluation. The hypothesis was supported for angry expressions, but not for sad ones. Implications for further research and the design of effective persuasive agents are discussed.

Keywords

Emotional Expression Emotion Recognition Artificial Agent Implicit Association Test Social Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.I.: The media equation: How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruijten, P.A.M., de Kort, Y.A.W., Kosnar, P.: Bridging the Gap between the Home and the Lab: A Qualitative Study of Acceptance of an Avatar Feedback System. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 251–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bates, J.: The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM 37(7), 122–125 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Midden, C., Ham, J.: The Illusion of Agency: The Influence of the Agency of an Artificial Agent on Its Persuasive Power. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 90–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baron-Cohen, S.: Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kleinke, C.L.: Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin 100(1), 78–100 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adams, R.B., Kleck, R.E.: Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. Emotion 5(1), 3–11 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adams, R.B., Kleck, R.E.: Perceived gaze direction and the processing of facial displays of emotion. Psychological Science 14(6), 644–647 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., Schwartz, J.L.: Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6), 1464–1480 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R.: Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(2), 197–216 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. M. Ruijten
    • 1
  • Cees J. H. Midden
    • 1
  • Jaap Ham
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations