Brief Presentation: The mere presence of another has been found to have an effect on a participant’s task performance. This effect has been termed social facilitation. Social facilitation effects are observed by examining the performance of participants performing simple and complex tasks. Performance and accuracy are facilitated for simple tasks and inhibited for complex tasks when a participant is in the presence of another, compared to when a participant is alone. The vast majority of previous studies on social facilitation have examined the effects of the actual, instructed or imagined presence of a human being on cognitive performance, but only very few studies have investigated whether this effect extends to non-human agents like avatars, computers or robots. This report aims to redact a state of art on virtual social facilitation to direct the next steps of future research.
Sketch presentation Virtual Social FacilitationVirtual Social Facilitation
Bibliography - Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoringand social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 80(3), 339.
- Anderson-Hanley, C., Snyder, A. L., Nimon, J. P., & Arciero, P. J. (2011).Social facilitation in virtual reality-enhanced exercise: competitivenessmoderates exercise effort of older adults. Clinical interventions inaging, 6, 275.
- Baldwin, N., Branyon, J., Sethumadhavan, A., & Pak, R. (2015,September). In Search of Virtual Social Facilitation Effects. InProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society AnnualMeeting (Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 90-94). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGEPublications.
- Bartneck, C. (2002). eMuu: an embodied emotional character for theambient intelligent home. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
- Bradner, E., & Mark, G. (2001, September). Social presence with videoand application sharing. In Proceedings of the 2001 international ACMSIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work (pp. 154-161). ACM.
- Cole, T., Barrett, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Social facilitation inonline and offline gambling: A pilot study. International Journal ofMental Health and Addiction, 9(3), 240-247.
- Davidson, R., & Henderson, R. (2000). Electronic PerformanceMonitoring: A Laboratory Investigation of the Influence of Monitoringand Difficulty on Task Performance, Mood State, and Self‐ReportedStress Levels. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 906-920.
- Gasser, R., Brodbeck, D., Degen, M., Luthiger, J., Wyss, R., & Reichlin,S. (2006). Persuasiveness of a mobile lifestyle coaching applicationusing social facilitation. Persuasive technology, 27-38.
- Goel, L., Junglas, I., Ives, B., & Johnson, N. (2012). Decision-makingin-socio and in-situ: Facilitation in virtual worlds. Decision SupportSystems, 52(2), 342-352.
- Hall, B., & Henningsen, D. D. (2008). Social facilitation andhuman–computer interaction. Computers in human behavior, 24(6),2965-2971.
- Hertz, N., & Wiese, E. (2017). “Social facilitation with nonhuman agents:possible or not?,” in Proceedings of HFES 2017, Austin, TX.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319206653_Social_Facilitation_with_Non-Human_Agents_Possible_or_not
- Niehaves, B., & Tavakoli, A. (2012). When Routine Work BecomesSocial: How Virtual Social Facilitation Increases Performance onSimple IT-Based Tasks.
- Park, S., & Catrambone, R. (2007). Social facilitation effects of virtualhumans. Human Factors, 49(6), 1054-1060.
- Rafaeli, S., & Noy, A. (2002). Online auctions, messaging,communication and social facilitation: a simulation and experimentalevidence. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(3), 196-207. ($)
- Rickenberg, R., & Reeves, B. (2000, April). The effects of animatedcharacters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of userinterfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factorsin Computing Systems (pp. 49-56). ACM.
- Riether, N., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., & Horstmann, G. (2012, March). Socialfacilitation with social robots?. In Proceedings of the seventh annualACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.41-48). ACM.
- Schermerhorn, P., Scheutz, M., & Crowell, C. R. (2008, March). Robotsocial presence and gender: Do females view robots differently thanmales?. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conferenceon Human robot interaction (pp. 263-270). ACM.
- Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J. H., & Waters, K. (1996).When the interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(2),97-124.
- Walker, J. H., Sproull, L., & Subramani, R. (1994, April). Using a humanface in an interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference onHuman factors in computing systems (pp. 85-91). ACM.
- Zanbaka, C. A., Ulinski, A. C., Goolkasian, P., & Hodges, L. F. (2007,April). Social responses to virtual humans: implications for futureinterface design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Humanfactors in computing systems (pp. 1561-1570). ACM.
|
|
|
Department of Science of Education and Psychology, University of Florence.Via di San Salvi, 12, Building 26, 50135 Florence. University of Florence office: +39 055 2755015 . Center for the Study of Complex Dynamics, Polo Scientifico, Sesto Fiorentino, (FI) - Italy. 
