Advertisement

Nonverbal Behavior Online: A Focus on Interactions with and via Artificial Agents and Avatars

  • Dennis Küster
  • Eva Krumhuber
  • Arvid Kappas
Chapter

Abstract

If someone picks up a book on nonverbal behavior, the reader is likely to expect topics relating to the emotions, intentions, or beliefs of people in interaction. Often readers are particularly keen to learn whether it is possible to detect deception from bodily or facial cues. Interest in skills not only addresses the decoding of nonverbal messages, but also whether and how one might improve one’s own nonverbal behavior in interaction to achieve certain goals, such as in a business context, a job talk, or in a relationship. These are indeed topics that are generally well covered in current handbooks on nonverbal behavior (see Hall & Knapp, 2013) and interpersonal communication (e.g., Smith & Wilson, 2009). In contrast, new emerging forms of online behavior are still relatively young among communication research foci (Walther & Ramirez, 2010). This is, however, bound to change as Internet research and more traditional perspectives on nonverbal communication become increasingly integrated (see, e.g., Joinson et al., 2009).

Keywords

Humanoid Robot Online Discussion Nonverbal Behavior Nonverbal Communication Social Robot 
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. Alexander, O., Rogers, M., Lambeth, W., Chiang, J.-Y., Ma, W.-C., Wang, C.-C., & Debevec, P. (2010). The Digital Emily Project: Achieving a photorealistic digital actor. IEEE Computer Graphics, 30, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2002). Internet and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2007). Personality, individual differences and Internet use. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes & U-D. Reips (Eds). The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 187–204). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Appel, J., von der Pütten, A., Krämer, N. C., & Gratch, J. (2012). Does humanity matter? Analyzing the importance of social cues and perceived agency of a computer system for the emergence of social reactions during humancomputer interaction. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2012, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bänziger, T., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2009). Emotion recognition from expressions in face, voice, and body: The multimodal emotion recognition test (MERT). Emotion, 9, 691–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bänziger, T. & Scherer, K. R. (2007). Using actor portrayals to systematically study multimodal emotion expression: The GEMEP corpus. In A. Paiva, R. Prada, & R. W. Picard (Eds), Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction. Berlin: Springer-Verlag (LNCS 4738, pp. 476–487).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bargh, J. A. & McKenna, K. Y. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartneck, C., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2009). My robotic doppelganger — A critical look at the Uncanny Valley theory. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2009) (vol. 1, pp. 1–8). Toyama, Japan: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bessière, K. M. A., Seay, A. F., & Kiesler, S. (2007). The ideal elf: Identity exploration in World of Warcraft. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bethel, C. L. & Murphy, R. R. (2006). Affective expression in appearance- constrained robots. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 327–328). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borshukov, G. & Lewis, J. P. (2005). Realistic human face rendering for ‘The Matrix Reloaded’. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2003 Sketches & Applications (p. 1). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Boyle, K. & Johnson, T. J. (2010). My Space is your space? Examining selfpresentation of My Space users. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1392–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Breazeal, C. L. (2002). Designing social robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Breazeal, C. & Scasselatti, B. (1999). How to build robots that make friends and influence people. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS ‘99) (vol. 2, pp. 858–863). Kyongju, Korea: IEEE.Google Scholar
  16. Broadband Commission for Digital Development. (2012). The state of broadband 2012: Achieving digital inclusion for all. Retrieved from http://www.broadbandcommission.org/documents/bb-annualreport2012.pdf.Google Scholar
  17. Burgoon, J. K. & Walther, J. B. (2013). Media and computer mediation. In J.A. Hall, & M.L. Knapp (Eds), Nonverbal Communication. Handbooks of Communication Science Vol. 2. (pp. 731–770). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.Google Scholar
  18. Busso, C., Bulut, M., Lee, C.-C., Kazemzadeh, A., Mower, E., Kim, S., … Narayanan, S. S. (2008). IEMOCAP: Interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database. Language Resources & Evaluation, 42, 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chmiel, A., Sienkiewicz, J., Thelwall, M., Paltoglou, G., Buckley, K., Kappas, A., & Hołyst, J. A. (2011). Collective emotions online and their influence on community life. PLoS ONE, 6, e22207. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022207.Google Scholar
  20. Dehn, D. M. & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DiSalvio, C, F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., & Kiesler, S. (2002). All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ‘02) (pp. 321–326). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Donath, J. (2007). Virtually trustworthy. Science, 317, 53–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ducheneaut N., Wen, M.-H. D., Yee, N., & Wadley, G. (2009). Body and mind: A study of avatar personalization in three virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘09) (pp. 1151–1160). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Eimler, S. C., Krämer, N. C., & von der Pütten, A. M. (2010). Prerequisites for human-agent and human-robot interaction: Towards an integrated theory. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics & Systems 2010 — Proceedings of the Twentieth European meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR 2010) (pp. 541–546). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.Google Scholar
  25. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11, 415–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fong, T. W., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2002). A survey of socially interactive robots: Concepts, design, and applications. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 142–166.Google Scholar
  27. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware companions? — What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI‘03) (pp. 273–280). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  28. Geller, T. (2008). Overcoming the uncanny valley. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 28, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., & Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’03) (pp. 55–60). doi:10.1109/R0MAN.2003.1251796.Google Scholar
  30. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gouskos, C. (2006). The depths of the Uncanny Valley. Retrieved from http://www.gamespot.com/features/the-depths-of-the-uncanny-valley-6153667/.Google Scholar
  32. Grammer, K., Filova, V., & Fiedler, M. (1997). The communication paradox and possible solutions: Towards a radical empiricism. In A. Schmitt, K. Atzwanger, K. Grammer & K. Schaefer (Eds), New aspects of human ethology (pp. 91–120). New York, USA: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gray, K. & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125, 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Green, R. D., MacDorman, K. F., Ho, C.-C., & Vasudevan, S. K. (2008). Sensitivity to the proportions of faces that vary in human likeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2456–2474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M., & Kruse, S. A. (2012). Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hall, J. A., & Knapp, M. L. (Eds). (2013). Nonverbal Communication. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter/Mouton.Google Scholar
  38. Hanson, D. (2006). Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. In Proceedings of the ICCS/Cog Sci-2006 long symposium: Toward social mechanisms of android science (pp. 16–20). Vancouver, Canada: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  39. Hegel, F., Lohse, M., Swadzba, A., Wachsmuth, S., Rohlfing, K., &Wrede, B. (2007). Classes of application for social robots: A user study. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (R0-MAN’07) (pp. 938–943). doi:10.1109/R0MAN.2007.4415218.Google Scholar
  40. Hegel, F., Lohse, M., & Wrede, B. (2009). Effects of visual appearance on the attribution of applications in social robotics. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (R0-MAN’09) (pp. 64–71). doi:10.1109/R0MAN.2009.5326340.Google Scholar
  41. Hess, U., Kappas, A., & Scherer, K. R. (1988). Multichannel communication of emotion: Synthetic signal production. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.) Facets of emotion: Recent research (pp. 161–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Higgins, T. E. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hinds, P. J., Roberts, T. L., & Jones, H. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 151–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hüttenrauch, H. & Severinson-Eklundh, K. (2002). Fetch and carry with CERO: Observations from a long term study with a service robot. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’02) (pp. 158–163). doi:10.1109/R0MAN.2002.1045615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ishiguro, H. (2006). Android science: Conscious and subconscious recognition. Connection Science, 18, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ishiguro, H., & Nishio, S. (2007). Building artificial humans to understand humans. Journal of Artificial Organs, 10, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., & Reips, U.-D. (Eds). (2009). Oxford handbook of Internet Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kappas, A. (2013). Social regulation of emotion: Messy layers. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(51). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00051.Google Scholar
  49. Kappas, A. & Descôteaux, J. (2003). Of butterflies and roaring thunder: Nonverbal communication in interaction and regulation of emotion. In P. Philippot, E.J. Coats & R.S. Feldman (Eds), Nonverbal behavior in clinical settings (pp. 45–74). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kappas, A. & Krämer, N. C. (Eds). (2011a). Introduction: Electronically mediated face-to-face communication: Issues, questions and challenges. In A. Kappas & N.C. Krämer (Eds) Face-to-face communication over the Internet. Emotions in a web of culture, language and technology (pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kappas, A. & Krämer, N. C. (Eds). (2011b). Face-to-face communication over the Internet. Emotions in a web of culture, language and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kappas, A., Küster, D., Theunis, M., & Tsankova, E. (2012, September). Cyberemotions: An analysis of synchronous computer mediated communication and dyadic interaction. Poster presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  53. Kiesler, S. (1997). Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Kiesler, S., & Goetz, J. (2002). Mental models and cooperation with robotic assistants. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’02) (pp. 576–577). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  55. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J, & McGuire, T.W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. King, W. J. & Ohya, J. (1996). The representation of agents: Anthropomorphism, agency, and intelligence. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’96) (pp. 289–290). New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  58. Koda, T. & Maes, P. (1996). Agents with faces: The effects of personification of agents. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (RO-MAN’96) (pp. 189–194). doi:10.1109/ROMAN. 1996.568812.Google Scholar
  59. Komatsu, T. & Yamada, S. (2007). Effects of robotic agents’ appearances on users’ interpretation of the agents’ attitudes: Towards an expansion of “uncanny valley” assumption. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (R0-MAN’07) (pp. 380–385). Jeju, South Korea: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  60. Konstabel, K., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Walkowitz, G., Konstabel, K.,& Verkasalo, M. (2011). The Short Five (S5): Measuring personality traits using comprehensive single items. European Journal of Personality, 26(1), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Krämer, N. C. (2005). Social communicative effects of a virtual program guide. In T. Panayiotopoulos (Ed.), Intelligent virtualagents (pp. 442–543). Hamburg: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Krämer, N. C., Eimler, S., von der Pütten, A. & Payr, S. (2011). “Theory of companions” What can theoretical models contribute to applications and understanding of human-robot interaction? Applied Artificial Intelligence, 25, 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Landmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Krumhuber, E., Hall, M., Hodgson, J., & Kappas, A. (2012). Designing interface agents: Beyond realism, resolution, and the uncanny valley. In D. Reichardt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Emotion and Computing — Current Research and Future Impact (pp. 18–25). Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar
  66. Krumhuber, E., & Kappas, A. (2005). Moving smiles: The role of dynamic components for the perception of the genuineness of smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A. S. R, Cosker, D., Marshall, D., & Rosin, P. L. (2009). Effects of dynamic attributes of smiles in human and synthetic faces: A simulated job interview setting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A. S. R, Cosker, D., Marshall, D., Rosin, P. L., & Kappas, A. (2007). Facial dynamics as indicators of trustworthiness and cooperative behavior. Emotion, 7, 730–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A. S. R, & Kappas, A. (2007). Temporal aspects of facial displays in person and expression perception. The effects of smile dynamics, head-tilt and gender. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lee, E.-J. (2004). Effects of gendered character representation on person perception and informational social influence in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 779–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lee, E.-J. (2005). Effects of the agent’s sex and self-confidence on informational social influence in computer-mediated communication: Quantitative versus verbal presentation. Communication Research, 32, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lee, J.-E. R., Nass, C. I., & Bailenson, J. N. (2014). Does the mask govern the mind? Effects of arbitrary gender representation on quantitative task performance in avatar-represented virtual groups. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(4), 248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lee, K. M., Peng, W., & Park, N. (2009). Effects of computer/video games and beyond. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 551–566).Google Scholar
  74. Levi, S. (2004). Why Tom Hanks is less than human: While sensors cannot capture how humans act, humans can give life to digital characters. Newsweek, 650, 305–306.Google Scholar
  75. Lohse, M., Hegel, F., Swadzba, A., Rohlfing, K., Wachsmuth, S., & Wrede, B. (2007). What can I do for you? Appearance and application of robots. In Proceedings of the 4th International Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour Conference (AISB’07) (pp. 121–126). Newcastle, UK: Society for the for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behavior.Google Scholar
  76. Looser, C. E. & Wheatley, T. (2010). The tipping point of animacy: How, when, and where we perceive life in a face. Psychological Science, 21, 1854–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C.-C., & Koch, C. T. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 695–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. MacDorman, K. F. & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, 7, 297–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Martey, R. M. & Consavalo, M. (2011). Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group identity in Second Life. Popular Communication, 9, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mazur, E. & Kozarian, L. (2010). Self-Presentation and interaction in blogs of adolescents and young emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 124–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Merola, N., & Peña, J. (2010). The effects of avatar appearance in virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5, 3–12.Google Scholar
  84. Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi No Tani. The Uncanny Valley (K. F. MacDorman & T. Minato, Trans.). Energy, 7(4), 33–35.Google Scholar
  85. Mori, M. (2012). The Uncanny Valley (K. F. MacDorman & N. Kageki, Trans.). IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 19, 98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nass, C. & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Henriksen, L., & Dryer, D. C. (1994). Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: Performance assessments of computers subsequent to “self-” or “other”- evaluations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nass, C. I., Moon, Y., Morkes, J., Kim, E., & Fogg, B. J. (1997). Computers are social actors: A review of current research. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 137–162). Cambridge, MA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  89. Parise, S., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Waters, K. (1996). My partner is a real dog: Cooperation with social agents. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’96) (pp. 399–408). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Parise, S., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Waters, K. (1999). Cooperating with life-like interface agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Philippot, P. & Douilliez, C. (2011). Impact of social anxiety on the processing of emotional information in video-mediated interaction. In A. Kappas & N.C. Krämer (Eds) Face-to-face communication over the Internet. Emotions in a web of culture, language and technology (pp. 127–143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Plantec, P. (2007). Crossing the great Uncanny Valley. Retrieved from http://www.awn.com/articles/production/crossing-great-uncanny-valley.Google Scholar
  93. Plantec, P. (2008). The digital eye: Image metrics attempts to leap the Uncanny Valley. Retrieved from http://www.awn.com/articles/technology/digital-eye-image-metrics-attempts-leap-uncanny-valley.Google Scholar
  94. Pollick, F. (2009). In search of the Uncanny Valley. In P. Daras & O. M. Ibarra (Eds.), UC Media 2009. Lecture notes of the institute for computer sciences, social informatics and telecommunications engineering (pp. 69–78). Venice, Italy: Springer.Google Scholar
  95. Poncin, I., & Garnier, M. (2012). Avatar identification on a 3D commercial website: Gender issues. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5, 1–20.Google Scholar
  96. Powers, A., & Kiesler, S. (2006). The advisor robot: Tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’06) (pp. 218–225). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Riek, L. D., Rabinowitch, T.-C., Chakrabarti, B., & Robinson, P. (2009). Empathizing with robots: Fellow feeling along the anthropomorphic spectrum. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops (ACII 2009) (pp. 1–9). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEEE Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Robins, B., Dautenhan, K., Boekhorst, R., & Billard, A. (2004). Robots as assistive technology — does appearance matter? Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 277 — 282). Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.Google Scholar
  100. Rosenbloom, S. (2011, November 12). Love, lies and what they learned. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Google Scholar
  101. Saygin, A. P., Chaminade, T., Ishiguro, H., Driver, J., & Frith, C. (2012). The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Scan, 7, 413–422.Google Scholar
  102. Seung, A. A. J. (2010). “I feel more connected to the physically ideal mini me than the mirror-image mini me”: Theoretical implications of the “malleable self” for speculations on the effects of avatar creation on avatar-self connection in Wii. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Seyama, J. & Nagayama, R. (2007). The uncanny valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 16, 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Short, J.A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  105. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T.W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013, October 21). Online dating & relationships. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project website: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Online-Dating.aspx.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, S. W., & Wilson, S. R. (2009). New directions in interpersonal communication research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  108. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J. H., & Waters, K. (1996). When the interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. St. John, W. (2002, April 12). Young, single and dating at hyperspeed. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.Google Scholar
  111. Steckenfinger, S. A. & Ghazanfar, A. A. (2009). Monkey visual behavior falls into the uncanny valley. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 106, 18362–18366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sung, Y., Moon, J. H., Kang, M., & Lin, J.-S. (2011). Actual self vs. avatar self: The effect of online social situation on self-expression. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 4, 3–21.Google Scholar
  113. Tinwell, A. & Grimshaw, M. (2009). Bridging the uncanny: An impossible traverse? In Proceedings of the 13th International Mind Trek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era (pp. 66–73). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  114. Tinwell, A., Grimshaw, M., Nabi, D. A., & Williams, A. (2011). Facial expression of emotion and perception of the Uncanny Valley in virtual characters. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., & Behr, K. (2009). Creating virtual alter egos or superheroines? Gamers’ strategies of avatar creation in terms of gender and sex. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 1, 52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., & Behr, K.-M. (2011). Playing myself or playing to win? Gamers’ strategies ofavatar creation in terms of gender and sex. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Discoveries in gaming and computer-mediated simulations: New interdisciplinary applications (pp. 329–352). Hershey, PA:IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Vang, M. H. & Fox, J. (2014). Race in virtual environments: Competitive versus cooperative games with black or white avatars. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(4), 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Van Mulken, S., Andre, E., & Müller, J. (1999). An empirical study on the trustworthiness of life-like interface agents. In H.-J. Bullinger & J. Ziegler (Eds), Human computer interaction (pp. 152–156). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  119. Vasalou, A. & Joinson, A. N. (2009). Me, myself and I: The role of interactional context on self-presentation through avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 510–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Villani, D., Gatti, E., Confalonieri, E., & Riva, G. (2012). Am I my avatar? A tool to investigate virtual body image representation in adolescence. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Von der Pütten, A., & Krämer, N. (2012). A survey on robot appearances. In Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 267–268). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  122. Vujović, L., Tsankova, E., Kappas, A., & Küster, D. (2011, August). Avatars in a “nonymous” vs. anonymous online setting. Poster presented at the 7th Conference of the Media Psychology Division of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
  123. Walters, M. L., Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Boekhorst, R. T., & Koay, K. L. (2008). Avoiding the Uncanny Valley — Robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Journal of Autonomous Robots, 24, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Walther, J. B. (2011). Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: Sometimes less is more. In A. Kappas & N.C. Krämer (Eds) Face-to-face communication over the Internet. Emotions in a web of culture, language and technology (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Walther, J. B., & Ramirez, A., Jr. (2010). New technologies and new directions in online relating. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds), New directions in interpersonal communication research (264–284). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Willis, J. & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Yoon, G. & Vargas, P. T. (2014). Know thy avatar: The unintended effect of virtual-self representation on behavior. Psychological Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0956797613519271Google Scholar
  130. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–1836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Zimmerman, J., Ayoob, E., Forlizzi, J., & McQuaid, M. (2005). Putting a face on embodied interface agents. In S. Wensveen (Ed.), Proceedings of Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces Conference (pp. 233–248). Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven Technical University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dennis Küster, Eva Krumhuber, and Arvid Kappas 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Küster
  • Eva Krumhuber
  • Arvid Kappas

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations