Author:
Fox Tree Jean E.,Herring Susan C.,Nguyen Allison,Whittaker Steve,Martin Rob,Takayama Leila
Abstract
Abstract
In a controlled lab experiment, we compared how in-person and robot-mediated communicative settings affected attitudes towards communicators and discourse phenomena related to conversational negotiation. We used a mock interview within-participants experiment design where each participant (mock interviewee) experienced both types of communication with the same experimenter (mock interviewer). Despite communicating with the same person, participants found the in-person interviewer to be more likable, more capable, more intelligent, more polite, more in control, and less awkward than the same person using a telepresence robot. Behaviorally, we did not detect differences in participants’ productions of discourse phenomena (likes, you knows, ums, uhs), laughter, or gaze. We also tested the role of communicative expectations on attitudes towards communications. We primed participants to expect that they would be talking to a person via telepresence, a “disabled” robot-person combination using telepresence, or a person in person (between-participants). We did not find differences arising from people’s expectations of the communication.
Funder
Research funds granted to Susan Herring by Indiana University were used for this project.
Research funds granted to Leila Takayama by the University of California Santa Cruz were used for this project.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference88 articles.
1. Adelswärd, Viveka (1989). Laughter and dialogue: The social significance of laughter in institutional discourse. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 107-136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500002018
2. Andersen, Gisle (1998). The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In A. H. Jucker; and Y. Ziv (eds): Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 147–70. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.09and
3. Argyle, Michael (1990). Bodily Communication. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
4. Argyle, Michael; and Janet Dean (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 289-304. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786027
5. Beattie, Geoffrey W. (1978). Sequential temporal patterns of speech and gaze in dialogue. Semiotica, vol. 23, nos. 1−2, pp. 29-52.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献