Advertisement

Quid Pro Quo? Reciprocal Self-disclosure and Communicative Accomodation towards a Virtual Interviewer

  • Astrid M. von der Pütten
  • Laura Hoffmann
  • Jennifer Klatt
  • Nicole C. Krämer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6895)

Abstract

Cassell and Miller [1] proposed the use of virtual agents as interviewers to be advantageous, because one can control for interviewer effects and variance, provide a sense of anonymity and increase the interviewee’s motivation to complete the survey. Against the background of Communication Adaptation Theory and empirical results on reciprocal self-disclosure, we investigated the influence of the agent’s reciprocal self-disclosure and wordiness on participants’ self-disclosure and perception of the agent and the interview in an experimental study with a 2x2 between-subjects design. While reciprocal self-disclosure only affected perceived co-presence, wordiness influenced both the participants’ verbal behavior (with regard to word usage and intimacy of answers) and their perception of the interview. Theoretical implications are discussed.

Keywords

ECA experimental study linguistic alignment communication adaptation theory reciprocal self-disclosure social effects virtual agent 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cassell, J., Miller, P.: Is it Self-Administration if the Computer Gives you Encouraging Looks? In: Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F. (eds.) Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future, pp. 161–178. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freeman, J., Butler, E.W.: Some Sources of Interviewer Variance in Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 40(1), 79–91 (1976), doi:10.1086/268269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weisband, S., Kiesler, S.: Self-disclosure on computer forms: meta-analysis and implications. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground, pp. 3–10. ACM, Vancouver (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Durant, L.E., Carey, M.P.: Self-Administered Questionnaires versus Face-to-Face Interviews in Assessing Sexual Behavior in Young Women. Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(4), 309–322 (2000), doi:10.1023/A:1001930202526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moon, Y.: Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self Disclosure From Consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 26(4), 323–339 (2000), doi:10.1086/209566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cialdini, R.B.: Influence: Science and practice, 3rd edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrlich, H.J., Graeven, D.B.: Reciprocal self-disclosure in a dyad. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 7(4), 389–400 (1971), doi:10.1016/0022-1031(71)90073-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joinson, A.N.: Knowing Me, Knowing You: Reciprocal Self-Disclosure in Internet-Based Surveys. CyberPsychology & Behavior 4(5), 587–591 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C., Gratch, J., Kang, S.: “It doesn’t matter what you are!” Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Computers in Human Behavior 26(6), 1641–1650 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kang, S.-H., Gratch, J.: Virtual humans elicit socially anxious interactants’ verbal self-disclosure. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 21(3) (2010), doi:10.1002/cav.345Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gong, L., Nass, C.: When a Talking-Face Computer Agent is Half-Human and Half-Humanoid: Human Identity and Consistency Preference. Human Communication Research 33(2), 163–193 (2007), doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00295.xGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giles, H., Coupland, N.: Language: Contexts and Consequences. Brooks/Cole, Monterey (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burgoon, J.K., Dillman, L., Stem, L.A.: Adaptation in Dyadic Interaction: Defining and Operationalizing Patterns of Reciprocity and Compensation. Communication Theory 3(4), 295–316 (1993), doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1993.tb00076.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bilous, F., Krauss, R.M.: Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behavior of same- and mixed-gender dyads. Language and Communication 8, 183–194 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gnisci, A., Bakeman, R.: Sequential Accommodation of Turn Taking and Turn Length: A Study of Courtroom Interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(3), 234–259 (2007), doi:10.1177/0261927X06303474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krämer, N.C., Sommer, N., Kopp, S., Becker-Asano, C.: Smile and the world will smile with you – The effects of a virtual agent’s smile on users’ evaluation and non-conscious behavioural mimicry. Paper presented at ICA 2009 Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garrod, S., Pickering, M.J.: Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(1), 8–11 (2004), doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Branigan, H.P., Pickering, M.J., Pearson, J., McLean, J.F.: Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics 42(9), 2355–2368 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nowak, K.L., Biocca, F.: The Effect of the Agency and Anthropomorphism on Users’ Sense of Telepresence, Copresence, and Social Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 12(5), 481–494 (2003), doi:10.1162/105474603322761289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F.: NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar nach Costa und McCrae (NEO-FFI), 2nd edn. Hogrefe, Göttingen (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller, L.C., Berg, J.H., Archer, R.L.: Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44(6), 1234–1244 (1983), doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.6.1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bickmore, T., Schulman, D., Yin, L.: Engagement vs. Deceit: Virtual Humans with Human Autobiographies. In: Ruttkay, Z., Kipp, M., Nijholt, A., Vilhjálmsson, H.H. (eds.) IVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5773, pp. 6–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2009), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04380-2_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Astrid M. von der Pütten
    • 1
  • Laura Hoffmann
    • 1
  • Jennifer Klatt
    • 1
  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Social Psychology: Media and CommunicationUniversity Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations