392102 Social User Interfaces (BS) (WiSe 2018/2019)

To be human means to interact socially with each other. Social norms and behavior developed
in long evolutionary and cultural processes by co-located interaction. Today’s primary social in-
teraction is mediated through technological interfaces. Though, these technological advancements
enable forms of social interaction that were not part of an evolutionary process, they neverthe-
less now are shaping cultural development. Hence, one can question whether social interaction
augmented by technology is the same as interaction between humans.
Previous work has proven that people treat technology and media as equal human partners
[NFM96]. Still, the consequences of these findings are not clear. How do social platforms like
Facebook or Twitter influence human behavior[BFJ + 12]? How do people react to social interfaces
designed to assist people when interacting with technologies? What kind of social interfaces will
robots or other new technologies need to enable an acceptable task-related cooperation between
the agent and the human?
In this seminar, we will first have a look on the psychological backgrounds on interacting with
technologies. We will look at the Media Equation theory and revise related publications on group
effects and persuasiveness of computers[RR00, Hes].
Then, we will look at how people are interacting socially using media. How are social relations
established in such contexts[Moo12], how do people feel when interacting with others mediated
through technology, and how are people influenced when using such platforms[VZS + 11].
Following these topics, we will look at studies that use technologies to bring remote-located
people closer together and look at tele-operated systems or live-feed interaction[MAP03]. Is being
remotely present evocating the same feeling of being socially connected[Jen05]?
Finally, we will look at the area of social robots and what kind of social interfaces robots could
or should provide. Here, we distinguish between life-like android robots, that could be used as tele-
operated surrogates and social robots that are interacting autonomously in a social environment.

[bARH17] Siti Aisyah binti Anas, Matthias Rauterberg, and Jun Hu. Designing Elements for a Gaze Sensitive Object: Meet the CoffeePet. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction - HAI ’17, pages 223–231, 2017.

[BFJ + 12] Robert M. Bond, Christopher J. Fariss, Jason J. Jones, Adam D.I. Kramer, Cameron Marlow, Jaime E. Settle, and James H. Fowler. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415):295–298, 2012.

[Cor09] AM Corley. The reality of robot surrogates. IEEE Spectrum, 23, 2009.

[DDK17] Guiying Du, Auriol Degbelo, and Christian Kray. Public displays for public participation in urban settings: a survey. Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, pages 17–26, 2017.

[FND03] Terrence Fong, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and autonomous systems, 42(3-4):143–166, 2003.

[Gui10] Erico Guizzo. When my avatar went to work. IEEE Spectrum, 47(9), 2010.

[Hes] Traci Hess. Journal of the Association for Information Systems Designing Interfaces with Social Presence : Using Vividness and Extraversion to Create Social Recommendation Agents * Designing Interfaces with Social Presence : Using Vividness and Extraversion to Create. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(12):889–919.

[Jen05] Pamela Jennings. Tangible Social Interfaces : Critical Theory , Boundary Objects and Interdisciplinary Design Methods. Design, pages 176–186, 2005.

[KJT11] Kai Kuikkaniemi, Giulio Jacucci, and Marko Turpeinen.
Change Urban Life. 2011.

[KS09] Andrew Keenan and Ali Shiri. Sociability and social interaction on social networking
websites. Library Review, 58(6):438–450, 2009.

[Li15] Jamy Li. The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 77:23–37, 2015.

[MAP03] Florian Mueller, Stefan Agamanolis, and Rosalind Picard. Exertion interfaces:Sports over a Distance for Social Bonding and Fun. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), (5):561–568, 2003.

[Moo12] Jessica Moorman. How Facebook Gave Me ‘Friends’: the Impact of Facebook Importance on Engagement and Psychological Well-Being. 2012.

[NFM96] Clifford Nass, B. J. Fogg, and Youngme Moon. Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45(6):669–678, 1996.

[OGR08] Kenton O’Hara, Maxine Glancy, and Simon Robertshaw. Understanding collective play in an urban screen game. Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’08, page 67, 2008. Interactive Screens Will

[ONK + 11] Kohei Ogawa, Shuichi Nishio, Kensuke Koda, Giuseppe Balistreri, Tetsuya Watanabe, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. Exploring the natural reaction of young and aged person with Telenoid in a real world. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 15(5):592–597, 2011.

[Pre01] Jenny Preece. Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(5):347–356, 2001.

[RR00] Raoul Rickenberg and Byron Reeves. The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’00, 2(1):49–56, 2000.

[VZS + 11] Jessica Vitak, Paul Zube, Andrew Smock, Caleb T. Carr, Nicole Ellison, and Cliff Lampe. It’s Complicated: Facebook Users’ Political Participation in the 2008 Election.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(3):107–114, 2011.

[WBLT09] Astrid Weiss, Regina Bernhaupt, Michael Lankes, and Manfred Tscheligi. The USUSevaluation framework for human-robot interaction. TARKISTA. . . in human-robot interaction, pages 158–165, 2009.