#ixlab

Interaction Lab

THROUGH THE (GOOGLE)

LOOKING GLASS

@bowmanspartan

@amperjay

@DKWesterman

#ICA15

HIGHLIGHTS

• Wearable technologies augment F2F with extra-dyadic information that might violate expectations In a randomized case/control study:

– Non-wearers perceived wearers as more physically attractive and interpersonally close; conversation as demanding, and reported lower state self-esteem

– Wearers were less attentive to conversation

– Glass conversations were less on-topic

CYBORGS“… popular culture is rife with [characters]

embodying integrations of the human and the

technological – the etymological “cybernetic

organism” (see Clynes & Kline, 1960).

However, cyborgs are more than fiction [as]

humans are becoming more technicized and

technologies more humanized (e.g., Bowker

and Star, 2000; Haraway, 1991).” (p. 1)

TRANSPARENT TECHNOLOGY

“Clark (2003) argues that the least-

intrusive technologies – those that are

physically and socially transparent

and human-centered – are the most

likely candidates to be incorporated

into the modern cyborg. (p. 2)”

GLASS HALO OR GLASSHOLE?

“…the presence of a wearable technology – representing a

“cyborgic” interaction partner perceived as too disparate

of an “other” – could be an expectancy violation.” (p. 8)

RQ1: How might the introduction of Google Glass into a face-to-

face conversation impact perceptions of the interaction partner?

Augmented Sociality allows

us to gather extra-dyadic information

without breaking FtF modality;

hyper-hypersonalcommunication

leads to deeper meaning.

Augmented Sociality introduces extra-dyadic information that requires additional processing, resulting in information transaction over interpersonal interaction.

THE SELF + THE INTERACTION

How might the introduction of Google Glass impact (RQ2) self-

perceptions and (RQ3) perceptions of conversation dynamics?

The introduction of a cyborgic other that does not conform to

[expected] mental models for social interaction could affect

self-evaluation, both for device-wearers and for non-

wearers whose interaction partners don the device.” (p. 9)

SAMPLE

• N = 78 (~ 21yrs, 71% ♀, 90% White)

• Dyads discussed “a campus transportation issue” [PRT]

• Google “Looking Glass” randomly assigned

Dependent Variables

• Interpersonal attraction

(McCroskey/McCain)

• Partner perceptions

(Sunnafrank)

• PICS (Popovics et al)

• SSES (Heatherton/Polivy)

• Social Presence (Short et al)

• Task Demand (NASA-TLX;

Bowman et al.)

• Emergent coding of open

data (Corbin/Strauss)

SAMPLE “LOOKING GLASS” POSTS

Control

partner

(n = 30)

“nonwearer”

(Glass

partner)

(n = 24)

t (df)* p-value

(two-tail)

Cohen’s d

(effect size r)

Partner Perceptions (RQ1)

Social attractiveness 4.78 (.551) 4.78 (.595) .019 (52) .985 .005 (.003)

Physical

attractiveness

4.47 (1.11) 4.85 (.701) 1.44 (50) .156 .407 (.200)

Perceived

anthropomorphism

4.93 (.783) 4.98 (1.00) .233 (52) .816 .065 (.032)

Future interactions with

partner

4.28 (.731) 4.26 (.814) .091 (52) .928 .025 (.013)

Self-Perceptions (RQ2)

Perceived

interpersonal distance

3.63 (1.33) 3.14 (1.28) 1.28 (46) .208 .377 (.185)

Self-Esteem 3.93 (.798) 3.83 (.547) .543 (52) .590 .151 (.075)

Conversation Dynamics (RQ3)

Social presence 4.68 (.750) 4.62 (.821) .289 (52) .774 .080 (.040)

Mentally Demanding 5.00 (4.26) 6.13 (4.54) .908 (48) .369 .262 (.130)

Physically Demanding 1.20 (1.58) 2.29 (2.87) 1.63 (44) .111 .491 (.239)

Annoying to Have 1.00 (1.72) 1.14 (1.53) .293 (43) .771 .090 (.044)

Table 1. Impact of talking to

a Glass-wearer or non-

wearer on perceptions

(effects greater than

Cohen’s d = .200 bolded)

KEYS• Glass-wearing

partner was

more attractive,

less distant

• Glass

conversations

were more

demanding

Non-

wearers

(n = 24)

Google

Glass

Wearers

(n = 24)

t (df)* p-value

(two-tail)

Cohen’s d

(effect size r)

Partner Perceptions (RQ1)

Social attractiveness 4.78 (.595) 4.68 (.443) .651 (46) .518 .192 (.096)

Physical attractiveness 4.85 (.701) 4.54 (.652) 1.59 (46) .119 .469 (.228)

Perceived

anthropomorphism

4.98 (1.00) 4.92 (.750) .261 (46) .795 .077 (.038)

Future interactions

with partner

4.26 (.814) 4.04 (.785) .933 (46) .356 .275 (.136)

Self-Perceptions (RQ2)

Perceived

interpersonal distance

3.12 (1.28) 3.40 (1.14) .679 (39) .501 .217 (.108)

Self-Esteem 3.83 (.547) 4.05 ( .410) 1.61 (46) .114 .475 (.231)

Conversation Dynamics (RQ3)

Social presence 4.62 (.821) 4.62 (.604) .000 (46) ~1.00 ~.000

Mentally Demanding 6.13 (4.53) 5.29 (3.26) .730 (45) .469 .218 (.108)

Physically Demanding 2.29 (2.87) 2.75 (3.42) .472 (39) .639 .205 (.102)

Annoying to Have 1.14 (1.53) 1.90 (3.18) .980 (39) .333 .313 (.155)

Table 2. Impact of Google

Glass wearing vs. non-

wearing on perceptions of

the other (effects greater

than Cohen’s d = .200

bolded)

KEYS• Glass-wearing

partner was

more attractive,

less distant

• Glass-wearers

felt more

distant, were

more annoyed

• Non-wearers

had lower state

self-esteem

Representative language Glass-

Wear

No-

Wear

Ctrl F(2,71) η2

Closeness behaviors (analogous to partner perceptions; RQ1)

Physical

Proximity

We were a good distance apart. (+) 47.8%

8n

42.9%

6n,5+

36.7%

9n,3+

.328 .009

Discrete Social Behaviors He did not disclose any personal

information. (n)

17.9%

5+

28.6%

2n,2+

30.0%

4n,3+,

2-

.592 .016

Broad Social Behaviors We had a nice conversation. (+) 8.70%

4+,1-

33.3%

1n,2+

33.3%

3n,6+,

2-

2.60 .068

Closeness feelings (analogous to self-perceptions; RQ2)

Similarity with Partner Since we go to the same school, we

experienced the same issues. (n)

34.8%

4n,3+,

1-

14.9%

1+,2-

50.0%

11n,3

+,1-

3.66 .093

Conversational Comfort At times the silence was awkward for

me. (-)

47.8%

5n,5+,

1-

52.4%

5n,2+,

4-

23.3%

3n,4+

2.81 .073

Quality of Conversation It was a nice, easy conversation. (+) 30.4%

1n,5+

38.1%

1n,7+

33.3%

1n,9+

.141 .004

Conversation context (analogous to conversation dynamics; RQ3)

Physical Environment/

Context

The table between us kept us from

being too close. (n)

21.7%

3n,1+,

1-

9.52%

1n,1-

23.3%

7n

.839 .023

Subject-matter mentions We talked about what could be

improved with the train system. (n)

26.1%

6n

14.3%

2n,1-

43.3%

10n,3-

2.68 .070

Table 3. List of non-

exclusive emergent

themes from open-

ended participant

responses.

KEYS• Glass-wearers

reference fewer

social

behaviors

• Non-wearers

made few

references to

similarity

• Non-wearers

were most

likely to

reference

discomfort

• Control group

was most on-

point

DISCUSSION“The introduction of wearable

technologies into FtF interactions calls

to question the role of communication

technology into spaces long considered

“free” of mediation.” (p. 24)

“…the path to relative interpersonal closeness is different

for each – for non-wearers as a function of attractiveness,

novelty, and engagement, and for Glass-wearers as a function

of what we affectionately call the “cool kid effect” as they

experienced a sort of ego-boost from awareness of their own

novelty. In these ways, not only may humans be in transition

as they augment human interaction (Giordano, 2013), so may

sociality be in transition.” (p. 26)

FUTURE“One reason Glass might

impact FtF interaction is that

the use of the device could

introduce unique

“channelesics” into the

conversation – that is,

nonverbal-like cues interpreted

by the recipient of a message

(O’Sullivan, 2004).” (p. 26).

Since the “Glasshole” effect really didn’t manifest in our study, what are

some of the channelesics that YOU think are associated with wearables?

Let us know at @bowmanspartan, @amperjay, & @DKWesterman! #ICA15

FOR MORE INFORMATION

ND Bowman (Nicholas.Bowman@mail.wvu.edu)

JD Banks (jabanks@mail.wvu.edu)

DK Westerman (david.k.westerman@ndsu.edu)

http://comm.wvu.edu/

fs/research/lab

#ixlab

Interaction Lab