Advertisement

It’s in Their Eyes: A Study on Female and Male Virtual Humans’ Gaze

  • Philipp Kulms
  • Nicole C. Krämer
  • Jonathan Gratch
  • Sin-Hwa Kang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6895)

Abstract

Social psychological research demonstrates that the same behavior might lead to different evaluations depending on whether it is shown by a man or a woman. With a view to design decisions with regard to virtual humans it is relevant to test whether this pattern also applies to gendered virtual humans. In a 2x2 between subjects experiment we manipulated the Rapport Agent’s gaze behavior and its gender in order to test whether especially female agents are evaluated more negatively when they do not show gender specific immediacy behavior and avoid gazing at the interaction partner. Instead of this interaction effect we found two main effects: gaze avoidance was evaluated negatively and female agents were rated more positively than male agents.

Keywords

female & male virtual agents eye contact gender differences gender stereotypes empirical evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ruttkay, Z., Pelachaud, C. (eds.): From brows to trust: evaluating embodied conversational agents. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krämer, N.C.: Soziale Wirkungen virtueller Helfer. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krämer, N.C., Hoffmann, L., Kopp, S.: Know Your Users! Empirical Results for Tailoring an Agent´s Nonverbal Behavior to Different User Groups. In: Safonova, A. (ed.) IVA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6356, pp. 468–474. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cowell, A.J., Stanney, K.M.: Embodiment and Interaction Guidelines for Designing Credible, Trustworthy Embodied Conversational Agents. In: Rist, T., Aylett, R.S., Ballin, D., Rickel, J. (eds.) IVA 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2792, pp. 301–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deutsch, F.M., LeBaron, D., Fryer, M.M.: What is in a smile? Psychology of Women Quarterly 11, 341–352 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Argyle, M., Dean, J.: Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28, 289–304 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgoon, J.K., Coker, D.A., Coker, R.A.: Communicative effects of gaze behavior. Human Communication Research 12, 495–524 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gratch, J., Okhmatovskaia, A., Lamothe, F., Marsella, S.C., Morales, M., van der Werf, R.J., Morency, L.-P.: Virtual rapport. In: Gratch, J., Young, M., Aylett, R.S., Ballin, D., Olivier, P. (eds.) IVA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4133, pp. 14–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gratch, J., Wang, N., Gerten, J., Fast, E., Duffy, R.: Creating rapport with virtual agents. In: Pelachaud, C., Martin, J.-C., André, E., Chollet, G., Karpouzis, K., Pelé, D. (eds.) IVA 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4722, pp. 125–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tickle-Degnen, L., Rosenthal, R.: The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry 1, 285–293 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V.: The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. In: Kendon, A. (ed.) Nonverbal Communication, Interaction, and Gesture, pp. 57–106. Mouton, The Hague (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matsumoto, D., Keltner, D., Shiota, M.N., O’Sullivan, M., Frank, M.: Facial Expressions of Emotion. In: Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J.M., Barrett, L.F. (eds.) Handbook of Emotions, 3rd edn., pp. 211–234. The Guilford Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richmond, V.P., McCroskey, J.C., Payne, S.K.: Nonverbal Behaviour in Interpersonal Relations, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anstis, S.M., Mayhew, J.W., Morley, T.: The perception of where a face or television ‘portrait’ is looking. The American Journal of Psychology 82, 474–489 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibson, J.J., Pick, A.D.: Perception of another person’s looking behavior. The American Journal of Psychology 78, 386–394 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duncan Jr., S.: Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin 72, 118–137 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burgoon, J.K., Bacue, A.E.: Nonverbal communication skills. In: Greene, J.O., Burleson, B.R. (eds.) Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, pp. 179–220. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Exline, R., Gray, D., Schuette, D.: Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1, 201–209 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ickes, W., Barnes, R.D.: The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 315–330 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Briton, N.J., Hall, J.A.: Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles 32, 79–90 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiske, S.T., Stevens, L.E.: What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In: Oskamp, S., Costanzo, M. (eds.) Gender Issues in Contemporary Society, pp. 173–196. Sage, Newbury Park (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Devine, P.G.: Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, 5–18 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y., Green, N.: Are machines gender neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27, 864–876 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moon, Y.: Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. The Journal of Consumer Research 26, 323–339 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kang, S., Gratch, J.: People like virtual counselors hat highly-disclose about themselves. The Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine (in press, 2011) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Watson, D., Tellegen, A., Clark, L.A.: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1063–1070 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Von der Pütten, A., Krämer, N.C., Gratch, J., Kang, S.-H.: “It doesn’t matter what you are¡‘ Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Computer in Human Behavior 26, 1641–1650 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bem, S.L.: The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42, 155–162 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., Loomis, J.M.: Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence 10, 583–598 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Biocca, F., Harms, C., Gregg, J.: The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. Paper presented at the 4th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheek, J.M.: The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale. Wellesley College, Wellesley (1983)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davis, M.: A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology 10, 85 (1980)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carney, D.R., Harrigan, J.A.: It takes one to know one: Interpersonal sensitivity is related to accurate assessments of others’ interpersonal sensitivity. Emotion 3, 194–200 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riggio, R.E.: The Social Skills Inventory (SSI): Measuring nonverbal and social skills. In: Manusov, V. (ed.) The Sourcebook of Nonverbal Measures: Going Beyond Words, pp. 23–31. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morency, L.-P., Sidner, C.L., Lee, C., Darrell, T.: Contextual recognition of head gestures. In: 7th International Conference on Multimodal Interactions, Toronto, Italy (2005) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mehrabian, A.: Nonverbal communication. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago (1972)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bavelas, J.B., Coates, L., Johnson, T.: Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication 52, 566–580 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Duncan Jr., S.: Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23, 283–292 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hogg, R.V., Tanis, E.A.: Probability and Statistical Inference. Macmillan, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kipp, M., Gebhard, P.: IGaze: Studying Reactive Gaze Behavior in Semi-immersive Human-Avatar Interactions. In: Prendinger, H., Lester, J.C., Ishizuka, M. (eds.) IVA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5208, pp. 191–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Kulms
    • 1
  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 1
  • Jonathan Gratch
    • 2
  • Sin-Hwa Kang
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Creative TechnologiesPlaya VistaUSA

Personalised recommendations