Transformed social interaction, augmented gaze, and social influence in immersive virtual environments

Immersive collaborative virtual environments (CVEs) are simulations in which geographically separated individuals interact in a shared, three-dimensional, digital space using immersive virtual environment technology. Unlike videoconference technology, which transmits direct video streams, immersive CVEs accurately track movements of interactants and render them nearly simultaneously (i.e., in real time) onto avatars, three-dimensional digital representations of the interactants. Nonverbal behaviors of interactants can be rendered veridically or transformed strategically (i.e., rendered nonveridically). This research examined augmented gaze, a transformation in which a given interactant's actual head movements are transformed by an algorithm that renders his or her gaze directly at multiple interactants simultaneously, such that each of the others perceives that the transformed interactant is gazing only at him or her. In the current study, a presenter read a persuasive passage to two listeners under various transformed gaze conditions, including augmented gaze. Results showed that women agreed with a persuasive message more during augmented gaze than other gaze conditions. Men recalled more verbal information from the passage than women. Implications for theories of social interaction and computer-mediated communication are discussed.

[1]  DAVID G. KENDALL,et al.  Introduction to Mathematical Statistics , 1947, Nature.

[2]  Albert Mehbabian.  Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. , 1967 .

[3]  A. Mehrabian.  Orientation behaviors and nonverbal attitude communication. , 1967, The Journal of communication.

[4]  A. Kendon.  Movement coordination in social interaction: some examples described. , 1970, Acta psychologica.

[5]  G Breed,et al.  The effect of intimacy: reciprocity or retreat? , 1972, The British journal of social and clinical psychology.

[6]  R. Fry,et al.  The Effects of Feedback and Eye Contact on Performance of a Digit-Coding Task , 1975 .

[7]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[8]  M. Patterson.  An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. , 1976 .

[9]  A. Kendon.  Studies in the behavior of social interaction , 1977 .

[10]  Effects of Counselor's Eye Contact on Student-Clients' Perceptions , 1978, Perceptual and motor skills.

[11]  A. Gale,et al.  Cortical arousal and social intimacy in the human female under different conditions of eye contact , 1978, Behavioural Processes.

[12]  Shelley Masion Rosenberg.  Bodily Communication , 1978 .

[13]  D. Rutter,et al.  Looking and Seeing: The Role of Visual Communication in Social Interaction , 1984 .

[14]  Staring and Participants' Sex: Physiological and Subjective Reactions , 1979 .

[15]  M. Goldman.  Effect of Eye Contact and Distance on the Verbal Reinforcement of Attitude , 1980 .

[16]  J. P. Otteson,et al.  Effect of Teacher's Gaze on Children's Story Recall , 1980 .

[17]  M. Patterson,et al.  Effects of nonverbal intimacy on arousal and behavioral adjustment , 1981 .

[18]  R. Bull,et al.  The Influences of Eye-Gaze, Style of Dress, and Locality on the Amounts of Money Donated to a Charity , 1981 .

[19]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Communicative effects of gaze behavior: a test of two contrasting explanations , 1986 .

[20]  C. Kleinke.  Gaze and eye contact: a research review. , 1986, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  A. Mulac,et al.  Male/Female Gaze in Same‐Sex and Mixed‐Sex Dyads Gender‐Linked Differences and Mutual Influence , 1987 .

[22]  J. V. Sherwood.  Facilitative Effects of Gaze upon Learning , 1987 .

[23]  A. Rodney Wellens,et al.  Heart-Rate Changes in Response to Shifts in Interpersonal Gaze from Liked and Disliked others , 1987 .

[24]  M. Argyle.  Bodily communication, 2nd ed. , 1988 .

[25]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[26]  J. Walther,et al.  Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction , 1990 .

[27]  Judith A. Hall.  Nonverbal sex differences: Accuracy of communication and expressive style. , 1990 .

[28]  Brian R. Lashley,et al.  Fishy-looking liars: deception judgment from expectancy violation. , 1992 .

[29]  Carrie Heater,et al.  Being There: The Subjective Experience of Presence , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[30]  C. F. Bond,et al.  Fishy-looking liars: deception judgment from expectancy violation. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  C. Segrin.  The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of compliance gaining attempts , 1993 .

[32]  R. Rice.  Media Appropriateness Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Traditional and New Organizational Media , 1993 .

[33]  Arjun Chaudhuri,et al.  Affect, Reason, and Persuasion: Advertising Strategies That Predict Affective and Analytic-Cognitive Responses. , 1995 .

[34]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns , 1995 .

[35]  Laura K. Guerrero,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Three Theories of Nonverbal Immediacy Exchange. , 1998 .

[36]  J. Loomis,et al.  Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[37]  M. Lombard,et al.  Presence and Television: The Role of Screen Size. , 2000 .

[38]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interactivity in human–computer interaction: a study of credibility, understanding, and influence , 2000 .

[39]  K. Williams,et al.  Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the Internet. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  Norah E. Dunbar,et al.  Testing the Interactivity Model: Communication Processes, Partner Assessments, and the Quality of Collaborative Work , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[41]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  Equilibrium Theory Revisited: Mutual Gaze and Personal Space in Virtual Environments , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[42]  Catherine Pelachaud,et al.  Rules for Responsive Robots: Using Human Interactions to Build Virtual Interactions , 2002 .

[43]  Crystal L. Hoyt,et al.  Immersive Virtual Environment Technology as a Methodological Tool for Social Psychology , 2002 .

[44]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  Gaze and task performance in shared virtual environments , 2002, Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds.

[45]  Marcel J. T. Reinders,et al.  Scale-invariant segmentation of dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MR images with inherent scale selection , 2002, Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds.

[46]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Online persuasion: An examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. , 2002 .

[47]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  AUTHORS' RESPONSE: Immersive Virtual Environment Technology: Just Another Methodological Tool for Social Psychology? , 2002 .

[48]  J. Loomis,et al.  Interpersonal Distance in Immersive Virtual Environments , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[49]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  Transformed Social Interaction: Decoupling Representation from Behavior and Form in Collaborative Virtual Environments , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[50]  Clifford Nass,et al.  'User as Assessor' Approach to Embodied Conversational Agents , 2004, From Brows to Trust.

[51]  R. Kleck,et al.  Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. , 2005, Emotion.

[52]  Lee Humphreys,et al.  Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication , 2006 .

[53]  J. Bailenson,et al.  Transformed Social Interaction: Exploring the Digital Plasticity of Avatars , 2006 .