Advertisement

First Impressions: Users’ Judgments of Virtual Agents’ Personality and Interpersonal Attitude in First Encounters

  • Angelo Cafaro
  • Hannes Högni Vilhjálmsson
  • Timothy Bickmore
  • Dirk Heylen
  • Kamilla Rún Jóhannsdóttir
  • Gunnar Steinn Valgarðsson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7502)

Abstract

In first encounters people quickly form impressions of each other’s personality and interpersonal attitude. We conducted a study to investigate how this transfers to first encounters between humans and virtual agents. In the study, subjects’ avatars approached greeting agents in a virtual museum rendered in both first and third person perspective. Each agent exclusively exhibited nonverbal immediacy cues (smile, gaze and proximity) during the approach. Afterwards subjects judged its personality (extraversion) and interpersonal attitude (hostility/friendliness). We found that within only 12.5 seconds of interaction subjects formed impressions of the agents based on observed behavior. In particular, proximity had impact on judgments of extraversion whereas smile and gaze on friendliness. These results held for the different camera perspectives. Insights on how the interpretations might change according to the user’s own personality are also provided.

Keywords

first impressions personality traits interpersonal attitude empirical evaluation nonverbal behavior camera perspectives 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Riggio, R.E., Friedman, H.S.: Impression formation: The role of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(2), 421–427 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DePaulo, B.M.: Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin 111(2), 203–243 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Naumann, L.P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P.J., Gosling, S.D.: Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35(12), 1661–1671 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argyle, M.: Bodily communication, 2nd edn. Methuen, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller, R., Perlman, D., Brehm, S.: Intimate Relationships. McGraw-Hill, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leary, M.R., Kowalski, R.M.: Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin 107(1), 34–47 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., Hale, J.L., de Turck, M.A.: Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research 10(3), 351–378 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ambady, N., Rosenthal, R.: Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(3), 431–441 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rule, N.O., Ambady, N.: Brief exposures: Male sexual orientation is accurately perceived at 50 ms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(4), 1100–1105 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rule, N.O., Ambady, N.: Democrats and republicans can be differentiated from their faces. PLoS ONE 5(1), e8733 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levesque, M.J., Kenny, D.A.: Accuracy of behavioral predictions at zero acquaintance: A social relations analysis. J. of Personality and Social Psychology 65(6), 1178–1187 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richmond, V., McCroskey, J., Hickson, M.: Nonverbal communication in interpersonal relations, 6th edn. Allyn and Bacon (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campbell, A., Rushton, J.P.: Bodily communication and personality. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology 17(1), 31–36 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kammrath, L.K., Ames, D.R., Scholer, A.A.: Keeping up impressions: Inferential rules for impression change across the big five. J. of Experimental Social Psychology 43(3), 450–457 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCrae, R.R., Costa Jr., P.T.: Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52(5), 509–516 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neff, M., Wang, Y., Abbott, R., Walker, M.: Evaluating the Effect of Gesture and Language on Personality Perception in Conversational Agents. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6356, pp. 222–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neff, M., Toothman, N., Bowmani, R., Fox Tree, J.E., Walker, M.A.: Don’t Scratch! Self-adaptors Reflect Emotional Stability. In: Vilhjálmsson, H.H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S., Thórisson, K.R. (eds.) IVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6895, pp. 398–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doce, T., Dias, J., Prada, R., Paiva, A.: Creating Individual Agents through Personality Traits. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6356, pp. 257–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Sevin, E., Hyniewska, S.J., Pelachaud, C.: Influence of personality traits on backchannel selection. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6356, pp. 187–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ballin, D., Gillies, M., Crabtree, B.: A framework for interpersonal attitude and non-verbal communication in improvisational visual media production. In: First European Conference on Visual Media Production IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, J., Marsella, S.: Modeling Side Participants and Bystanders: The Importance of Being a Laugh Track. In: Vilhjálmsson, H.H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S., Thórisson, K.R. (eds.) IVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6895, pp. 240–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ter Maat, M., Heylen, D.: Turn Management or Impression Management? In: Ruttkay, Z., Kipp, M., Nijholt, A., Vilhjálmsson, H.H. (eds.) IVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5773, pp. 467–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ter Maat, M., Truong, K.P., Heylen, D.: How turn-taking strategies influence users’ impressions of an agent. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6356, pp. 441–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fukayama, A., Ohno, T., Mukawa, N., Sawaki, M., Hagita, N.: Messages embedded in gaze of interface agents — impression management with agent’s gaze. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI, pp. 41–48. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Takashima, K., Omori, Y., Yoshimoto, Y., Itoh, Y., Kitamura, Y., Kishino, F.: Effects of avatar’s blinking animation on person impressions. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2008, pp. 169–176. Canadian Information Processing Society, Toronto (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bickmore, T., Cassell, J.: Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI, pp. 396–403. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C., Gratch, J.: How Our Personality Shapes Our Interactions with Virtual Characters - Implications for Research and Development. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6356, pp. 208–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kang, S.-H., Gratch, J., Wang, N., Watt, J.H.: Does the contingency of agents’ nonverbal feedback affect users’ social anxiety? In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 120–127. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kang, S.-H., Gratch, J., Wang, N., Watt, J.H.: Agreeable People Like Agreeable Virtual Humans. In: Prendinger, H., Lester, J.C., Ishizuka, M. (eds.) IVA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5208, pp. 253–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Isbister, K., Nass, C.: Consistency of personality in interactive characters: verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53(2), 251–267 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kendon, A.: Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics). Cambridge University Press (1990)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hall, E.T.: The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday (1966)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bradley, J.V.: Complete counterbalancing of immediate sequential effects in a latin square design. Journal of the American Statistical Association 53(282), 525–528 (1958)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Saucier, G.: Mini-markers: A brief version of goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment 63(3), 506–516 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gelman, A., Park, D.: Splitting a predictor at the upper quarter or third and the lower quarter or third. The American Statistician 63(1), 1–8 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    MacCallum, R., Zhang, S., Preacher, K., Rucker, D.: On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods 7(1), 19–40 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., Rosenthal, R.: On judging and being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3), 518–529 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mohler, B.J., Bülthoff, H.H., Thompson, W.B., Creem-Regehr, S.H.: A full-body avatar improves egocentric distance judgments in an immersive virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, p. 194. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Salamin, P., Thalmann, D., Vexo, F.: The benefits of third-person perspective in virtual and augmented reality? In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 27–30. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mohler, B.J., Bülthoff, H.H., Dodds, T.J.: A communication task in hmd virtual environments: Speaker and listener movement improves communication. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Animation and Social Agents, pp. 1–4 (June 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Cafaro
    • 1
  • Hannes Högni Vilhjálmsson
    • 1
  • Timothy Bickmore
    • 4
  • Dirk Heylen
    • 5
  • Kamilla Rún Jóhannsdóttir
    • 2
  • Gunnar Steinn Valgarðsson
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCenter for Analysis and Design of Intelligent AgentsIceland
  2. 2.School of BusinessReykjavik UniversityIceland
  3. 3.Icelandic Institute for Intelligent MachinesReykjavikIceland
  4. 4.College of Computer and Information ScienceNortheastern UniversityUSA
  5. 5.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations