Personification:
Metaphor and Fictional Character
in CMC
Johan F. Hoorn
International Commun
tion Association
Vrije Universiteit
Faculty of Sciences, Department of Computer Science
Section Information Management & Software Engineering
Subsection Human Computer Interaction, Multimedia & Culture
jfhoorn@cs.vu.nl
www.cs.vu.nl/~jfhoorn
May 25, 2003
San Diego, CA
Theory
Personification,
what is it?
Personification
Fictional character
(Time, Cupid)
used as a metaphor
(Time is a man, Love is a boy)
for an abstraction
(Time, Love)
Pierre Mignard (1694). Time Clipping Cupid’s Wings.
Personification
Fictional character
(Robby)
used as a metaphor
(Human is machine)
for an abstraction
(Help, Search, Navigate)
Software agents can be
personifications
Bill Gates (1997). Robby the Robot.
No Personification
Fictional character
(Builder)
used literally
(Builder is a tutor)
for an abstraction
(Help, Instruct, Create)
For this agent,
the metaphoric aspect
is missing
RealTimeAide (2003). Building tutor.
http://www.realtimeaide.com/tutor/tutor.htm
Research question
What’s the use
of personification
in CMC?
Should we apply personifications?
User effort
Literal icon/dialog
Metaphoric icon/dialog
Mediated person/
Fictional character (FC)
Personification
(FC plus metaphor)
Ease of
understanding
Motivation
Fun
Task relevance
User support
“Look and feel”
Etc.
Should we apply personifications?
User effort
Motivation
Literal icon/dialog
+ (easy)
- (no fun)
Metaphoric icon/dialog
- (difficult)
+ (surprising)
Mediated person/
Fictional character (FC)
- (build a
++ (involve-
Personification
(FC plus metaphor)
--
relationship)
ment)
+++
Personification is
more effort for more motivation?
Theory
Agents, what do
they communicate?
Agent-Mediated Communication
Sender
System’s
stakeholder
(e.g., client,
designer,
manager)
Goals:
- instruct
- persuade
- entertain
Message
Receiver
End-user
Fictional character
+ metaphor
Match?
Goals:
- be instructed
- be persuaded
- be entertained
Agent-Mediated Communication
Sender
System’s
stakeholder
(e.g., client,
designer,
manager)
Receiver’s perspective
Message
End-user
Fictional character
Human
processing
PEFiC
Goals:
- instruct
- persuade
- entertain
+ metaphor
Support
user
goals?
yes
Use
agent
Metaphor process
no
Don’t
use
agent
Agent-Mediated Communication
Sender’s perspective
Message
System’s
stakeholder
Receiver
End-user
(e.g., client,
designer,
manager)
Alter agent
no
Goals:
- instruct
- persuade
- entertain
yes
Support
other goal?
no
Goals:
- be instructed
- be persuaded
- be entertained
Match?
yes
Maintain agent
http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/eos/users/l/lester/www/images/IPA/cosmo_ok.gif
Agent-Mediated Communication
Sender
Receiver’s perspective
Message
Perceiving and Experiencing
Fictional Characters
End-user
Human
processing
PEFiC
For empirical evidence, see and hear:
Results of other studies
Characters,
how are they processed?
ENCODE
COMPARE
Features of situation
and Fictional Character
Appraisal domains
Ethics
Epistemics
Norm
good
dissimilar
beautiful
irrelevant
realistic
negative valence
Mediators
bad
similar
ugly
relevant
unrealistic
positive valence
Subjective norm vs.
group norm
PEFiC model
Involvement
%
Aesthetics
%
RESPOND
Fuzzy
feature sets
Distance
Identification,
empathy, sympathy,
warm feelings,
approach, etc.
Appreciation
Detachment,
antipathy, cold
feelings, avoidance,
etc.
Example of PEFiC in action for factor Relevance to user goals
Involvement
Peedy
Relevant features
if goal is ‘entertainment’
Task-irrelevant features
(goal ‘instruction’)
http://www.scpcug.com/wmwand12.html
Distance
From character to metaphor
What is the role
of epistemics?
Agent-Mediated Communication
Message
Receiver’s perspective
Race model of
Metaphor Processing
Part of Epistemics
RMP
For empirical evidence, see:
End-user
Human
processing
Metaphor is part of Epistemics
‘tutor is a human’
‘human is a machine’
suit
‘conversation partner
is a human’
‘product presenter
is a dog’’
drooling
(saliva)
feet
drooling
(too enthusiastic)
constrained
descriptive figurative
descriptive figurative
descriptive figurative
descriptive figurative
literal
metaphor
literal
metaphor
realistic
ASSOCIATION
unrealistic
COMMUNICATION FORM
EPISTEMICS
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~kobsa/courses/ICS104/course-notes/metaphors.ht; http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/ags/wbski/lehre/digiSA/Methoden_der_KI/WS0102/methki15.pdf
Results of other studies
Metaphors,
how are they processed?
human
Activate
descriptive and
figurative
features
machine
yes
Calculate
descriptive
intersection
Race
model of
Metaphor
Processing
Category
match?
Activate
descriptive and
figurative
features
no
EEG: N400 at
frontal cortex
Calculate
descriptive/figurative
intersection
Sufficient descriptive AND
descriptive/figurative
intersection?
no
feet
constrained
‘Anomaly’
Cosmo
‘Literal’
no
Sufficient
descriptive/figurative
intersection?
yes
‘Metaphor’
Discussion
How come metaphors
are harder to get but
do not take more time?
Errors are the answer
Problem:
Response times for literal and metaphor are about equal.
No way telling whether these two information sources
are serial or parallel
Calculate
descriptive
intersection
Calculate
descriptive/figurative
intersection
(1)
(2)
If serial (1 before 2), applying metaphor is more time consuming
and probably, more difficult to understand
If parallel, metaphor can be applied without losing time-efficiency
and trouble of understanding
‘Literal’
no
Sufficient
descriptive/figurative
intersection?
yes
‘Metaphor’
Solution:
Investigate Lateralized Readiness Potential (LRP) in response to
partial error pattern (after Coles et al., 1995)
Calculate
descriptive
intersection
(1)
Few errors
for ‘Metaphor’
‘Literal’
Thus, speed is
not the difficulty
in metaphor
but
accuracy is
Calculate
descriptive/figurative
intersection
(2)
Many errors for ‘Literal’ 
invisible in behavioral measures
(e.g., RT) because they are
corrected before response execution
 visible in EEG
‘Metaphor’
For full argumentation, see:
Predictions for contralateral effects of finger movement
during metaphor processing
(fictitious data)
Partial error ‘Literal’
Correct ‘Metaphor’
LRP high
LRP low
motor cortex
stimulus
onset
stimulus
onset
stimulus
response
buttons
‘Metaphor’
‘Literal’
Shall we apply personifications, then?
high
User effort
Motivation
+ (easy)
- (no fun)
high
Literal icon/dialog
N400 (surprise)
Two information sources:
- descriptive
- descriptive/figurative
Time efficiency
Metaphoric
Categoryicon/dialog
mismatch
PEFiC
RMP
- (difficult)
+ (surprising)
Mediated person/
Fictional character (FC)
- (do I like the
++ (personal
Personification
(FC plus metaphor)
--
Error prone (LRP)
Appreciation (Fun)
Task relevance
Valence (User support)
Aesthetics (“Look and feel”)
Ethics (Good bot vs. bad bot)
Epistemics (Graphic rendering)
Similarity (cf. Avatars)
Involvement-distance
character?)
-ized)
+++
Personification is
more effort for more motivation
Future work
We developed a software package for testing existing and newly created agents:
Stimulus and trial production, RTs, and in the future, questionnaires and EEG extensions.
Downloads: http://www.antbed.tk/
What is it?
What can you
do with it?
Action
preview
Create environments in PowerPoint
and let the agent do its actions
Personification:
THE
END Character
Metaphor and
Fictional
in CMC
Wanna know more? Visit www.cs.vu.nl/~jfhoorn