Ambiguous Agents: The Influence of Consistency of an Artificial Agent’s Social Cues on Emotion Recognition, Recall, and Persuasiveness

References

• Adams, R. B., & Kleck, R. E. (2003). Perceived gaze direction and the processing of facial displays of emotion. Psychological Science, 14(6), 644–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, R. B., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. Emotion, 5(1), 3–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adolphs, R. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(3), 165–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allison, T., Puce, A., & McCarthy, G. (2000). Social perception from visual cues: Role of the STS region. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(7), 267–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 122–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beale, R., & Creed, C. (2009). Affective interaction: How emotional agents affect users. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 67(9), 755–776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A. C., Swinth, K. R., Hoyt, C. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13(2), 103–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cafaro, A., Vilhjálmsson, H. H., Bickmore, T., Heylen, D., Jóhannsdóttir, K. R., & Valgarðsson, G. S. (2012). First impressions: Users’ judgments of virtual agents’ personality and interpersonal attitude in first encounters. In Y. Nakano, M. Neff, A. Paiva, & M. Walker (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents (pp. 67–80). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• De Melo, C. M., Carnevale, P., & Gratch, J. (2010). The influence of emotions in embodied agents on human decision-making. In J. Allbeck, N. Badler, T. Bickmore, C. Pelachaud, & A. Safonova (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents (pp. 357–370). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(6), 581–604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2007). Social cognition in humans. Current Biology, 17(16), 724–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2010). The social brain: Allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1537), 165–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ham, J., Midden, C. J. H., Maan, S. J., & Merkus, B. (2009). Persuasive lighting: The influence of feedback through lighting on energy conservation behavior. In Y. A. W. de Kort, W. A. IJsselsteijn, I. M. L. C. Vogels, M. P. J. Aarts, A. D. Tenner, & K. C. H. J. Smolders (Eds.), Experiencing Light 2009: International Conference on the Effects of Light on Wellbeing (pp. 122–128). Eindhoven University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna, N., & Richards, D. (2014). Measuring the effect of personality on human-IVA shared understanding. In A. Bazzam, M. Huhns, A. Lomuscio, & P. Scerri (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 1643–1644). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Haptek. (2015). Haptek Inc. Retrieved from http://www.haptek.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 78–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, M., Hall, J., & Horgan, T. (2013). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Langton, S. R. H., Watt, R. J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(2), 50–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massaro, D. W. (1998). Perceiving talking faces: From speech perception to a behavioral principle (vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Midden, C. J. H., & Ham, J. (2009). Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In S. Chatterjee & P. Dev (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology (pp. 12:1–12:6). New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human–computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Gong, L. (2000). Speech interfaces from an evolutionary perspective. Communications of the ACM, 43(9), 36–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B., & Dryer, D. C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 43(2), 223–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E., & Reeder, H. (1993). Anthropomorphism, agency, and ethopoeia: Computers as social actors. In S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel, & T. White (Eds.), Interact’93 and chi’93 conference companion on human factors in computing systems (pp. 111–112). New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In W. E. Mackay, S. Brewster, & S. Bødker (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 72–78). New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Neff, M., Wang, Y., Abbott, R., & Walker, M. (2010). Evaluating the effect of gesture and language on personality perception in conversational agents. In J. Allbeck, N. Badler, T. Bickmore, C. Pelachaud, & A. Safonova (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents (pp. 222–235). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Novick, D., & Gris, I. (2014). Building rapport between human and ECA: A pilot study. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human–computer interaction: Advanced interaction modalities and techniques (pp. 472–480). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation agents: A social relationship perspective to designing information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25 (4), 145–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, MA: CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roland, P. E. (1993). Brain activation. New York: Wiley-Liss.
   Google Scholar
• Ruijten, P. A. M. (2015). Responses to human-like artificial agents. Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij BOXPress.
   Google Scholar
• Ruijten, P. A. M., Bouten, D. H. L., Rouschop, D. C. J., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. H. (2014). Introducing a rasch-type anthropomorphism scale. In G. Sagerer, M. Imai, T. Belpaeme, & A. Thomaz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 acm/ieee international conference on human–robot interaction (pp. 280–281). New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sallnäs, E.-L. (2005). Effects of communication mode on social presence, virtual presence, and performance in collaborative virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(4), 434–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J. H., & Waters, K. (1996). When the interface is a face. Human–Computer Interaction, 11(2), 97–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surakka, V., & Vanhala, T. (2011). Emotions in human–computer interaction. In A. Kappas & N. C. Krämer (Eds.), Face-to-face Communication over the Internet: Emotions in a web of culture, language, and technology (pp. 213–236). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1999). Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 11–46). New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Breemen, A., Yan, X., & Meerbeek, B. (2005). iCat: An animated user-interface robot with personality. In M. Pechoucek, D. Steiner, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 143–144). New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Vossen, S., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. H. (2010). What makes social feedback from a robot work? Disentangling the effect of speech, physical appearance and evaluation. In T. Ploug, P. Hasle, & H. Oinas-Kukkonen (Eds.), Persuasive technology (pp. 52–57). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Whelan, R. (2010). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psychological Record, 58(3), 475–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, R. (2003). Measuring explained variation in linear mixed effects models. Statistics in Medicine, 22(22), 3527–3541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar