A Taxonomy of Social Cues for
When using the taxonomy, please cite as Feine, J., Gnewuch U., Morana S. and Maedche A. (2019): “A Taxonomy of Social Cues for Conversational Agents” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. To read the paper, please click here.
The CA moves its eyes to intentionally or unintentionally fixate or track objects.
CA is looking in the direction of the other person’s face.
Eye blinking creates the impression that the agent is being alive (Kraemer et al. 2016; Becker et al. 2005), impacts believability (Becker et al. 2004), human-likeness (McBreen et al. 2001) and social reactions of the user towards the agent (Appel et al. 2012). However, it does not enhance the perceived social presence like reactive nonverbal feedback (Puetten et al. 2010; Von der Pütten et al. 2009). Furthermore, too unrealistic movements do not positively impact the agent evaluation (Bonito et al 1999). Eye contact can increase trustworthiness (Cowell, Stanney 2005), builds rapport (Krämer et al. 2016), impacts the likeability (Cafaro et al. 2016), and influences the perceived dominance of the agent (Gebhard et al. 2014). Furthermore, moving eye gaze makes the agent more natural (Mersiol et al. 2002), human-like (McBreen et al. 2001) and indicates turn-taking attempts (Cassel et al. 1999). It is further useful as part of relational behavior strategies to ensure a long-term working alliance (Bickmore et al. 2005). Gaze behavior can further be used for flirtation which impacts the user’s enjoyment, increased their interest to continue the interaction or even to engage in a conversation (Bee et al. 2009).The perception of being monitored by an animated character, who is making eye contact, has the same effects on anxiety and performance as being monitored by a human (Rickenberg, Reeves 2000).