skip to main content
10.1145/1240624.1240626acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces

Published:29 April 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

The use of embodied agents, defined as visual human-like representations accompanying a computer interface, is becoming prevalent in applications ranging from educational software to advertisements. In the current work, we assimilate previous empirical studies which compare interfaces with visually embodied agents to interfaces without agents, both using an informal, descriptive technique based on experimental results (46 studies) as well as a formal statistical meta-analysis (25 studies). Results revealed significantly larger effect sizes when analyzing subjective responses (i.e., questionnaire ratings, interviews) than when analyzing behavioral responses such as task performance and memory. Furthermore, the effects of adding an agent to an interface are larger than the effects of animating an agent to behave more realistically. However, the overall effect sizes were quite small (e.g., across studies, adding a face to an interface only explains approximately 2.5% of the variance in results). We discuss the implications for both designers building interfaces as well as social scientists designing experiments to evaluate those interfaces.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

1240626.mp4

mp4

120.4 MB

References

  1. Bailenson, J., Blasovich, J., Beall, A., and Loomis, J., Equilibrium Theory Revisited: Mutual Gaze and Personal Space in Virtual Environments. Presence, 2001. 10(6): p. 583--598. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bailenson, J., Beall, A., and Blasovich, J., Gaze and Task Performance in Shared Virtual Environments. The Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation, 2002. 13: p. 313--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailenson, J., Blasovich, J., Beall, A., and Loomis, J., Interpersonal Distance in Immersive Virtual Environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2003. 29: p. 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailenson, J., Swinth, K., Hoyt, C., Persky, S., Dimov, A., and Blascovich, J., The independent and interactive effects of embodied agent appearance and behavior on self--report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in Immersive Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2005. 14(379--393). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bailenson, J. and Yee, N., A Longitudinal Study of Task Performance, Head Movements, Subjective Report, Simulator Sickness, and Transformed Social Interaction in Collaborative Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2006. 15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bartneck, C., How Convincing is Mr. Data's Smile: Affective Expressions of Machines. User Modeling and User--Adapted Interaction, 2001. 11: p. 279--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bente, G., Kramer, N., Petersen, A., and Ruiter, J., Computer Animated Movement and Person Perception: Methodological Advances in Nonverbal Behavior Research. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2001. 25(3): p. 151--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Beun, R-J., de Vos, E., and Witterman, C., Embodied conversational agents: Effects on memory performance and anthropomorphisation, in IVA 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2792, T. Rist, Editor. 2003. p. 315--319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A., Swinth, K., Hoyt, C., and Bailenson, J., Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 2002. 13: p. 103--124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonito, J., Burgoon, J., and Bengtsson, B. The Role of Expectations in Human--Computer Interaction. in GROUP '99: International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 1999. Phoenix, AZ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Burgoon, J., Bengtsson, B., Bonito, J., Ramirez, A.J., and Dunbar, N. Designing Interfaces to Maximize the Quality of Collaborative Work. in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1999. Maui, Hawaii. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Burgoon, J., Bonito, J., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M., and Allspach, L., Interactivity in Human--Computer Interaction: A Study of Credibility, Understanding, and Influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 2000. 16: p. 553--574.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Cassell, J., Nudge Nudge Wink Wink: Elements of Face--to--Face Conversation for Embodied Conversational Agents, in Embodied Conversational Agents, J. Cassell, Editor. 2000, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. p. 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Cassell, J., Towards a Model of Technology and Literacy Development: Story Listening Systems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2004. 25: p. 75--105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Chan, F.Y. and Khalid, H.M., Is Talking to an Automated Teller Machine Natural and Fun? Egronomics, 2003. 46: p. 1386--1407.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowell, A.J., Increasing the Credibility of Anthropomorphic Computer Characters: The Effects of Manipulating Nonverbal Interaction Style and Demographic Emodiment. 2001, University of Central Florida: Orlando, Florida.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dehn, D. and van Mulken, S., The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 2000. 52: p. 1--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Fabri, M., Moore, D., and Hobbs, D. Expressive Agents: Non-Verbal Communication in Collaborative Virtual Environments. in The Autonomous Agents and Multi--Agent Systems. 2002. Bologna, Italy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerhard, M., Moore, D., and Hobbs, D., Close Encounters of the Virtual Kind: Agents Simulating Copresence. Applied Artifical Intelligence, 2005. 19: p. 393--412.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Guadagno, R., Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J., and McCall, C., Virtual Humans and Persuasion: The Effects of Agency and Behavioral Realism. Media Psychology, in press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Gulz, A., Social Enrichment by Virtual Characters -- Differential Benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2005. 21: p. 405--418.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hess, T.J., Fuller, M.A., and Mathew, J., Involvement and Decision--Making Performance with a Decision Aid: The Influence of Social Multimedia, Gender, and Playfulness. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2006. 22(3): p. 15--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Hongpaisanwiwat, C. and Lewis, M. Attentional Effect of Animated Character. in Human--Computer Interaction -- INTERACT. 2003. Zurich, Switzerland: IOS Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hook, K., Persson, P., and Sjolinder, M., Evaluating Users' Experience of a Character--Enhanced Information Space. AI Communications, 2000. 13: p. 195--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kiesler, S., Waters, K., and Sproull, L., A Prisoner's Dilemma Experiment on Cooperation with People and Human--Like Computers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996. 70: p. 47--65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Koda, T. and Maes, P. Agents with Faces: The Effect of Personification of Agents. in Human--Computer Interaction. 1996. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Koda, T., User Reactions to Anthropmorphized Interfaces. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 2003. E86--D: p. 1369--1377.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kramer, N. Social Communicative Effects of a Virtual Program Guide. in Intelligent Virtual Agents. 2005. Kos, Greece: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Lee, E. and Nass, C., Experimental Tests of Normative Group Influence and Representation Effects in Computer-Mediated Communication: When Interacting Via Computers Differs from Interacting with Computers. Human Computer Research, 2002. 28(3): p. 349--381.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Marti, S. and Schmandt, C. Physical Embodiments for Mobile Communication Agents. in UIST. 2005. Seattle, Washington. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. McBreen, H. and Jack, M., Evaluating humanoid synthetic agents in E-retail applications. IEEE SMC Transactions, 2001. 31: p. 394--405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. McBreen, H. and Jack, M., Evaluating Humanoid Synthetic Agents in E-Retail Applications. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics -- Part A: Stystems and Humans, 2001. 31(5): p. 394--405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H., and Lester, J., The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?. Cognition and Instruction, 2001. 19: p. 177--213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H., and Lester, J., The Case for Social Agency in Computer-Based Teaching: Do Students Learn More Deeply When They Interact With Animated Pedogogical Agents? Cognition and Instruction, 2001. 19(2): p. 177--213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Mori, M., The Uncanny Valley. Energy, 1970. 7: p. 33--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Mosteller, F. and Bush, R., Selected quantitative techniques, in Handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1. Theory and method, G. Lindzey, Editor. 1954, Addison-Wesley: Cambridge, MA. p. 289--334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Moundridou, M. and Virvou, M., Evaluating the Persona Effect of an Interface Agent in an Intelligent Tutoring System. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2002. 18(3): p. 253--261.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Murano, P. Effectiveness of Mapping Human-Oriented Information to Feedback From a Software Interface. in 24th International Conference Information Technology Interfaces ITI 2002. Cavtat, Croatia.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Nass, C., Moon, Y., and Carney, P., Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999. 29: p. 1093--1110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Nowak, K. and Rauh, C., The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2005. 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Okonkwo, C. and Vassileva, J. Affective Pedagogical Agents and User Presuasion. in Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. 2001. New Orleans, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Oulasvirta, A. and Salovaara, A., A cognitive meta-analysis of design approaches to interruptions in intelligent environments. Proceedings of CHI 2004, 2004: p. 1155--1158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Prendinger, H., Ma, C., and Yingzi, J. Understanding the Effect of Life-Like Interface Agents Through Users' Eye Movements. in International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. 2005. New York: ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Prendinger, H., Mori, J., and Ishizuka, M., Using Human Physiology to Evaluate Subtle Expressivity of a Virtual Quizmaster in a Mathematical Game. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2005. 62: p. 231--245. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Qvarfordt, P., Jonsson, A., and Dahlback, N. The Role of Spoken Feedback in Experiencing Multimodal Interfaces as Human-like. in ICMI '03. 2003. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Rickenberg, R. and Reeves, B. The Effects of Animated Characters on Anxiety, Task Performance, and Evaluations of User Interfaces. in CHI. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Rosenthal, R., Meta-analytic procedures for social research. 1984, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenthal, R. and DiMatteo, M., Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods in Literature Reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001. 52: p. 59--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Schaumburg, H., Computers as Tools or as Social Actors? -- The Users' Perspective on Anthropomorphic Agents. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 2001. 10: p. 217--234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Slater, M., How colorful was your day? Why questionnaires cannot assess presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2004. 13: p. 484--493. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Sproull, L., Subramani, R., Kiesler, S., Walker, J., and Waters, K., When the Interface Is a Face. Human-Computer Interaction, 1996. 11: p. 97--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Swartout, W., Gratch, J., Hill, R., Hovy, E., Marsella, S., Rickel, J., and Traum, D., Toward Virtual Humans, in AI. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Takeuchi, A. and Naito, T., Situated Facial Displays: Towards Social Interaction. Proceedings of CHI 1995, 1996: p. 450--455. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Tomlinson, B., Yau, M., and Baumer, E. Embodied Mobile Agents. in Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems. 2006. Hakodate, Japan. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Van Mulken, S., Andre, E., and Muller, J. The Persona Effect: How Substantial is It? in Human-Computer Interaction. 1998. Berlin, Germany. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Van Mulken, S., Andre, E., and Muller, J. An Empiricial Study on the Trustworthiness of Life-Like Interface Agents. in Human-Computer Interaction. 1999. Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. van Vugt, H., Konijn, E., Hoorn, J., Keur, I., and Eliëns, A., Realism is not all! User engagement with task-related interface characters. Interacting with Computers, in press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Vertegaal, R. and Ding, Y. Explaining Effects of Eye Gaze on Mediated Group Conversations: Amount or Synchronization. in Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2002. New Orleans: ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Walker, J., Sproull, L., and Subramani, R., Using a Human Face in an Interface. Proceedings of CHI 1994, 1994: p. 85--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Walker, J., Sproull, L., and Subramani, R. Using a Human Face in an Interface. in CHI '94 "Celebrating Interdependence". 1994. Boston, Massachusetts USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Walther, J., Anderson, J., and Park, D., Inpersonal effects in computer-mediated interactions: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 1994. 21: p. 460--487.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Walther, J., Slovacek, C., and Tidwell, L., Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?allPhotographic Images in Long-Term and Short-Term Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research, 2001. 28: p. 105--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Weisband, S. and Kiesler, S., Self-disclosure on computer forms: Meta--analysis and implications. Proceedings of CHI96, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Wexelblat, A., Don't Make that Face: A Report on Anthropomorphizing an Interface. Intelligent Environments, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Xiao, J., Stasko, J., and Catrambone, R. Embodied Conversational Agents as UI Paradigm: A Framework for Evaluation. in AAMAS02 Workshop on 'Embodied Conversational Agents -- Let's Specifiy and Evaluate Them! 2002. Bologna, Italy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., and Hodges, L., Can a virtual cat persuade you? The role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness. Proceedings of CHI 2006, 2006: p. 1153--1162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2007
      1654 pages
      ISBN:9781595935939
      DOI:10.1145/1240624

      Copyright © 2007 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 29 April 2007

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '07 Paper Acceptance Rate182of840submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader