Hedonic vs Utilitarian No.3

1. Title & Reference:

   Astrid, M., Krämer, N. C., & Gratch, J. (2010, September). How our personality shapes our interactions with virtual characters-implications for research and development. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 208-221). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

2. Agent Type:

   Embodied Agent, Female Human appearance (breathing, eye blinking, posture shifts) + node (or not)

3. Theme of conversation (domain): Small Talk

4. Result / Implication: personality traits are better predictors for the evaluation outcome than the actual behavior of the agent as it has been manipulated in the experiment.

5. Analysis Method: We focused on one user perception variable that was more different for the two REPs and also most relevant to a virtual interview context: Trust

6. Memo:

   • agreeableness (Big Five), extroversion (Big Five), approach avoidance, self-efficacy in monitoring others, shyness, public self-consciousness

   • Participants who try to leave a good impression about themselves in others report about stronger negative feelings (Agent의 반응 보다는, 개인 성향이 Agent에대한 Anger 표출에 더 큰 영향을 줌)

   • people who are more sensitive towards social cues which indicate socially desirable behavior felt less negative after the interaction than people with a weaker value in self-efficacy

   • people who easily deal with encountering other people and more agreeable people reported to feel better after the interaction.

   • People who are efficient in monitoring others experienced less negative feelings

   • shyer people evaluated the agent to be more submissive

   • people who want to leave a good impression evaluated the agent less submissive.

   • People who are more sensitive to social cues for desirable behavior and try less to make a good impression evaluate the agent more positively
   • other personality traits(Big Five), gender, age did not affect the evaluation