InterfaceCharacters

Henriette van Vugt

FEW and FSW

VUBIS 10-05-05

Aim of the project

Typical characteristic:life-likeness, realism, epistemics

Experiment 1

Epistemics

Valence

Involvement

Distance

Task performance

Control variables

Aesthetics

Relevance

Similarity

• Valence

• Epistemics

Realistic vs Unrealistic vs Unembodied

Manipulations experiment 1

Demonstration

•Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

•38,403•b •5 •7,681 •12,094 •,000

•90,866•c •5 •18,173 •21,446 •,000

•,464 •1 •,464 •,730 •,395

•2,985 •1 •2,985 •3,522 •,064

•1,268 •1 •1,268 •1,997 •,161

•10,354 •1 •10,354 •12,219 •,001

•25,077 •1 •25,077 •39,485 •,000

•23,361 •1 •23,361 •27,567 •,000

•1,425 •1 •1,425 •2,244 •,137

•3,824 •1 •3,824 •4,513 •,036

•3,486 •1 •3,486 •5,488 •,021

•,006 •1 •,006 •,007 •,935

•,002 •1 •,002 •,003 •,957

•2,358 •1 •2,358 •2,783 •,099

•60,969 •96 •,635

•81,352 •96 •,847

•613,500 •102

•1335,750 •102

•99,373 •101

•172,218 •101

•Dependent Variable•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Involvement_factor

•Distance_factor

•Source•Corrected Model

•Intercept

•relevance

•aesthetics

•valence

•epistemics

•valence * epistemics

•Error

•Total

•Corrected Total

•Type III Sum•of Squares •df •Mean Square •F •Sig.

•Computed using alpha = ,05•a.

•R Squared = ,386 (Adjusted R Squared = ,355)•b.

•R Squared = ,528 (Adjusted R Squared = ,503)•c.

Preliminary conclusions

• Epistemics effects involvement, not distance

• Valence effects distance, not involvement

• Relevance and Aesthetics are important factors as well!

Task performance

Mean

Positive valence 82

Negative valence 75

F(1, 128) = 4.48, p < .036

Preliminary conclusion:

Valence effects task performance,

Epistemics does not

Experiment 2• Are the Engagement and Interaction

process dependent on each other?

• Aesthetics: ugly versus beautiful

• Affordances: aids versus obstacles

Manipulations(pilot tests conduced soon)

Measures

• Involvement and distance

• Intentions to use and Intentions not to use

• Satisfaction

• Task performance

Publications• 1.      Van Vugt, H.C., Hoorn, J.F. and Konijn, E.A. (2004). Adapting

empathic agents to user experiences. In proceedings of the workshop on ‘Empathic Agents’, AAMAS 2004, New York, 19-23 July.

• 2.      Hoorn, J. F. and Van Vugt, H. C. (2004). The role of social norm in user-engagement and appreciation of the web interface agent Bonzi Buddy. In proceedings of the workshop on ‘Empathic Agents’, AAMAS 2004, New York, 19-23 July.

• 3.      Hoorn, J. F., Eliëns, A., Huang, Z., Van Vugt, H. C., Konijn, E. A., & Visser, C. T. (2004).Agents with character: Evaluation of empathic agents in digital dossiers. In proceedings of the workshop on ‘Empathic Agents’, AAMAS 2004, New York, 19-23 July.

• 4.      Van Vugt, H.C., Konijn, E.A., Hoorn, J.F., Eliëns, A. and Keur, I. (2005). Emotional Engagement with Embodied Agents. Presented as a poster on the Workshop on Emotion and Interaction. Paris, 10-11 March 2005.

• 5. Van Vugt, H.C. Hoorn, J.F. and Konijn, E.A. (2005). Digital bonding: Interactive and Affective Affordances of Agents. Accepted at the workshop on ‘Creating bonds with humanoids’, AAMAS 2005, 23-27 July 2005.

Questions?