More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Anticipated User Stereotypes Systematically Affect the Social Acceptability of Mobile Devices

Authors:

Valentin Schwind,

Niels HenzeAuthors Info & Claims

NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

Article No.: 13, Pages 1 - 12

https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420113

Published: 26 October 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Understanding social perception is crucial when designing socially accepted mobile devices. Using the stereotype content model (SCM), recent work showed that mobile devices systematically attract stereotypical users’ warmth and competence. It was concluded that the SCM can predict a device’s social acceptability. There is, however, no empirical evidence for the assumption that the SCM can predict social acceptability and it also unclear what causes a device’s stereotypical perception. In this paper, we first verify that the SCM’s dimensions strongly correlate with social acceptance and show that social acceptance can be explained through stereotypical perception. In a second study, we independently asked participants to assess the warmth and competence of mobile devices, human stereotypes, and the probability that human stereotypes use the devices. We found that warmth and competence of anticipated stereotypical users predict a device’s position in the SCM. The combined results of both studies show that the stereotypical perception of anticipated users can explain the social acceptability of mobile devices.

References

[1]

Jennifer Aaker, Kathleen D. Vohs, and Cassie Mogilner. 2010. Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter. Journal of Consumer Research 37, 2 (02 2010), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1086/651566 arXiv:http://oup.prod.sis.lan/jcr/article-pdf/37/2/224/17930260/37-2-224.pdf

[2]

Jennifer L. Aaker, Emily N. Garbinsky, and Kathleen D. Vohs. 2012. Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth, competence, and landing in the golden quadrant. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, 2 (2012), 191–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.012

[3]

Gordon W. Allport, Kenneth Clark, and Thomas Pettigrew. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.

[4]

Leonardo Angelini, Maurizio Caon, Stefano Carrino, Luc Bergeron, Nathalie Nyffeler, Mélanie Jean-Mairet, and Elena Mugellini. 2013. Designing a Desirable Smart Bracelet for Older Adults. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing Adjunct Publication (Zurich, Switzerland) (UbiComp ’13 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1145/2494091.2495974

Digital Library

[5]

Paolo Antonetti and Stan Maklan. 2016. Hippies, greenies, and tree huggers: How the ”warmth” stereotype hinders the adoption of responsible brands. Psychology & Marketing 33, 10 (2016), 796–813.

[6]

Aimée K. Bright and Lynne Coventry. 2013. Assistive Technology for Older Adults: Psychological and Socio-Emotional Design Requirements. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (Rhodes, Greece) (PETRA ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 9, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2504335.2504344

[7]

Michael Chattalas. 2015. National stereotype effects on consumer expectations and purchase likelihood: competent versus warm countries of origin. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research 10, 1 (2015).

[8]

Amy J.C. Cuddy and Susan T. Fiske. 2002. Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older persons. Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons 3 (2002), 26.

[9]

Amy J.C. Cuddy, Susan T. Fiske, and Peter Glick. 2008. Warmth and Competence as Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2008), 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0

[10]

Amy J.C. Cuddy, Susan T. Fiske, Virginia S.Y. Kwan, Peter Glick, Stephanie Demoulin, Jacques-Philippe Leyens, Michael Harris Bond, Jean-Claude Croizet, Naomi Ellemers, Ed Sleebos, 2009. Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology 48, 1 (2009), 1–33.

[11]

Patricia G. Devine. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.Journal of personality and social psychology 56, 1(1989), 5.

[12]

Federica Durante, Susan T. Fiske, Michele J. Gelfand, Franca Crippa, Chiara Suttora, Amelia Stillwell, Frank Asbrock, Zeynep Aycan, Hege H. Bye, Rickard Carlsson, Fredrik Björklund, Munqith Dagher, Armando Geller, Christian Albrekt Larsen, Abdel-Hamid Abdel Latif, Tuuli Anna Mähönen, Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, and Ali Teymoori. 2017. Ambivalent stereotypes link to peace, conflict, and inequality across 38 nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 4 (2017), 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611874114 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/content/114/4/669.full.pdf

[13]

Federica Durante, Susan T. Fiske, Nicolas Kervyn, Amy J.C. Cuddy, Adebowale Debo Akande, Bolanle E. Adetoun, Modupe F. Adewuyi, Magdeline M. Tserere, Ananthi Al Ramiah, Khairul Anwar Mastor, 2018. Nations’ income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: How societies mind the gap. In Social Cognition. Routledge, 246–268.

[14]

Thomas Eckes. 2002. Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles 47, 3-4 (2002), 99–114.

[15]

Susan F. Erler and Dean C. Garstecki. 2002. Hearing Loss-and Hearing Aid-Related Stigma. American Journal of Audiology(2002). https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2002/020)

[16]

Susan T. Fiske. 1989. Examining the role of intent: Toward understanding its role in stereotyping and prejudice. Unintended thought 253(1989), 253–283.

[17]

Susan T. Fiske, Amy J.C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.Journal of personality and social psychology 82, 6 (jun 2002), 878–902. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ /12051578

[18]

Susan T. Fiske and Cydney Dupree. 2014. Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, Supplement 4(2014), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111

[19]

Susan T. Fiske and Federica Durante. 2014. Never trust a politician? Collective distrust, relational accountability, and voter response. In Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK, 91–105.

[20]

Jan Gugenheimer, Christian Mai, Mark McGill, Julie Williamson, Frank Steinicke, and Ken Perlin. 2019. Challenges Using Head-Mounted Displays in Shared and Social Spaces. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI EA ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article W19, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3299028

Digital Library

[21]

Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Harpreet Sareen, and Enrico Rukzio. 2018. FaceDisplay: Towards Asymmetric Multi-User Interaction for Nomadic Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 54, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173628

Digital Library

[22]

Jonna Häkkilä, Farnaz Vahabpour, Ashley Colley, Jani Väyrynen, and Timo Koskela. 2015. Design Probes Study on User Perceptions of a Smart Glasses Concept. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (Linz, Austria) (MUM ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1145/2836041.2836064

Digital Library

[23]

Stevan Harnad. 2017. To Cognize is to Categorize: Cognition is Categorization. In Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science (Second Edition) (second edition ed.), Henri Cohen and Claire Lefebvre (Eds.). Elsevier, San Diego, 21 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101107-2.00002-6

[24]

Bjoern S. Ivens, Alexander Leischnig, Brigitte Muller, and Katharina Valta. 2015. On the role of brand stereotypes in shaping consumer response toward brands: An empirical examination of direct and mediating effects of warmth and competence. Psychology & Marketing 32, 8 (2015), 808–820.

[25]

Charles M. Judd and Bernadette Park. 1993. Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes.Psychological review 100, 1 (1993), 109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.109

[26]

Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braly. 1933. Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 28, 3(1933), 280. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074049

[27]

Norene Kelly. 2017. All the World’s a Stage: What Makes a Wearable Socially Acceptable. Interactions 24, 6 (Oct. 2017), 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137093

Digital Library

[28]

Norene Kelly and Stephen Gilbert. 2016. The WEAR Scale: Developing a Measure of the Social Acceptability of a Wearable Device. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI EA ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2864–2871. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892331

Digital Library

[29]

Norene Kelly and Stephen B. Gilbert. 2018. The Wearer, the Device, and Its Use: Advances in Understanding the Social Acceptability of Wearables. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 62, 1(2018), 1027–1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621237

[30]

Nicolas Kervyn, Susan T. Fiske, and Chris Malone. 2012. Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, 2 (2012), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.006 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.006

[31]

Marion Koelle, Matthias Kranz, and Andreas Möller. 2015. Don’t look at me that way! – Understanding User Attitudes Towards Data Glasses Usage. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Copenhagen, Denmark) (MobileHCI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785842

Digital Library

[32]

Marion Koelle, Thomas Olsson, Robb Mitchell, Julie Williamson, and Susanne Boll. 2019. What is (Un)Acceptable?: Thoughts on Social Acceptability in HCI Research. Interactions 26, 3 (April 2019), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319073

[33]

Marion Koelle, Katrin Wolf, and Susanne Boll. 2018. Beyond LED Status Lights - Design Requirements of Privacy Notices for Body-worn Cameras. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Stockholm, Sweden) (TEI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173234

Digital Library

[34]

Daniel Lakens. 2017. Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t Tests, Correlations, and Meta-Analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8, 4 (2017), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177

[35]

Monica H. Lin, Virginia S.Y. Kwan, Anna Cheung, and Susan T. Fiske. 2005. Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, 1 (2005), 34–47.

[36]

Nancy F. Liu, Adam S. Brown, Alexandra E. Folias, Michael F. Younge, Susan J. Guzman, Kelly L. Close, and Richard Wood. 2017. Stigma in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Clinical Diabetes 35, 1 (2017), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.2337/cd16-0020

[37]

Calkin S. Montero, Jason Alexander, Mark T. Marshall, and Sriram Subramanian. 2010. Would You Do That? – Understanding Social Acceptance of Gestural Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Lisbon, Portugal) (MobileHCI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 275–278. https://doi.org/10.1145/1851600.1851647

Digital Library

[38]

Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Diego.

Digital Library

[39]

Scott Plous. 2003. The psychology of prejudice, sterotyping, and discrimination: An overview.In Understanding prejudice and discrimination. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, US, 3–48.

[40]

Daniel Pohl and Carlos F. de Tejada Quemada. 2016. See what I see: Concepts to improve the social acceptance of HMDs. In 2016 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR). 267–268. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2016.7504756

[41]

Halley P. Profita. 2017. Designing Wearable Assistive Computing Devices to Support Social Acceptability and Personal Expression. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Colorado Boulder. https://scholar.colorado.edu/csci_gradetds/138/

[42]

Halley P. Profita, Reem Albaghli, Leah Findlater, Paul Jaeger, and Shaun K. Kane. 2016. The AT Effect: How Disability Affects the Perceived Social Acceptability of Head-Mounted Display Use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4884–4895. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858130

Digital Library

[43]

Halley P. Profita, James Clawson, Scott Gilliland, Clint Zeagler, Thad Starner, Jim Budd, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do. 2013. Don’t Mind Me Touching My Wrist: A Case Study of Interacting with On-body Technology in Public. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Wearable Computers (Zurich, Switzerland) (ISWC ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493988.2494331

Digital Library

[44]

Julie Rico and Stephen Brewster. 2010. Gesture and Voice Prototyping for Early Evaluations of Social Acceptability in Multimodal Interfaces. In International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces and the Workshop on Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction (Beijing, China) (ICMI-MLMI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 16, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1891903.1891925

[45]

Julie Rico and Stephen Brewster. 2010. Usable Gestures for Mobile Interfaces: Evaluating Social Acceptability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 887–896. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753458

Digital Library

[46]

Jasmin Schabert, Jessica L. Browne, Kylie Mosely, and Jane Speight. 2013. Social stigma in diabetes. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 6, 1 (2013), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-012-0001-0

[47]

Florian Schaub, Julian Seifert, Frank Honold, Michael Müller, Enrico Rukzio, and Michael Weber. 2014. Broken Display = Broken Interface? The Impact of Display Damage on Smartphone Interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2337–2346. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557067

Digital Library

[48]

Valentin Schwind, Niklas Deierlein, Romina Poguntke, and Niels Henze. 2019. Understanding the Social Acceptability of Mobile Devices Using the Stereotype Content Model. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 361, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300591

Digital Library

[49]

Valentin Schwind, Jens Reinhardt, Rufat Rzayev, Niels Henze, and Katrin Wolf. 2018. On the Need for Standardized Methods to Study the Social Acceptability of Emerging Technologies. In CHI’18 Workshop on (Un) Acceptable!?!-Re-thinking the Social Acceptability of Emerging Technologies. 6. https://socialacceptabilityworkshop.uol.de/2018/proceedings/CHI18-SociallyAcceptableCHI-schwind.pdf

[50]

Valentin Schwind, Jens Reinhardt, Rufat Rzayev, Niels Henze, and Katrin Wolf. 2018. Virtual Reality on the Go?: A Study on Social Acceptance of VR Glasses. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (Barcelona, Spain) (MobileHCI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236112.3236127

Digital Library

[51]

Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2011. In the Shadow of Misperception: Assistive Technology Use and Social Interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979044

Digital Library

[52]

Charles Spearman. 1904. The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. The American Journal of Psychology 15, 1 (1904), 72–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159

[53]

Julian Steil, Marion Koelle, Wilko Heuten, Susanne Boll, and Andreas Bulling. 2019. PrivacEye: Privacy-preserving Head-mounted Eye Tracking Using Egocentric Scene Image and Eye Movement Features. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (Denver, Colorado) (ETRA ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 26, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314111.3319913

Digital Library

[54]

Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, Thomas Olsson, and Jari Laaksonen. 2012. An Exploratory Study of User-generated Spatial Gestures with Social Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (Ulm, Germany) (MUM ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2406367.2406381

Digital Library

[55]

Margaret I. Wallhagen. 2009. The Stigma of Hearing Loss. The Gerontologist 50, 1 (07 2009), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnp107 arXiv:http://oup.prod.sis.lan/gerontologist/article-pdf/50/1/66/2034590/gnp107.pdf

[56]

Katherine White and Darren W. Dahl. 2006. To Be or Not Be? The Influence of Dissociative Reference Groups on Consumer Preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16, 4 (2006), 404 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_11

[57]

Julie R. Williamson, Andrew Crossan, and Stephen Brewster. 2011. Multimodal Mobile Interactions: Usability Studies in Real World Settings. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (Alicante, Spain) (ICMI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1145/2070481.2070551

Digital Library

Cited By

Kaviani FLyall BKoppel S(2024)Exploring social perceptions of everyday smartglass use in AustraliaPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.031300119:11(e0313001)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313001
Zulfikar WChan SMaes P(2024)Memoro: Using Large Language Models to Realize a Concise Interface for Real-Time Memory AugmentationProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642450(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642450
Whitmore NChan SZhang JChwalek PChin SMaes P(2024)Improving Attention Using Wearables via Haptic and Multimodal Rhythmic StimuliProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642256(1-14)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642256
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Anticipated User Stereotypes Systematically Affect the Social Acceptability of Mobile Devices
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Understanding the Social Acceptability of Mobile Devices using the Stereotype Content Model
CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Understanding social perception is important for designing mobile devices that are socially acceptable. Previous work not only investigated the social acceptability of mobile devices and interaction techniques but also provided tools to measure social ...
The Influence of Gender-Ethnic Intersectionality on Gender Stereotypes about IT Skills and Knowledge

One line of investigation in attempting to better understand the gender imbalance in the information technology (IT) field is to examine gender stereotypes about the skills and knowledge in the IT profession. A survey of 4046 university students in the ...
Children’s Implicit and Explicit Stereotypes on the Gender, Social Skills, and Interests of a Computer Scientist
ICER 2021: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

Motivation Only 27% of computer and mathematical scientists in the United States and 18% of IT specialists in Europe are women. The under-representation of women in the field of Computer Science is, among other things, influenced by stereotypes of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

October 2020

1177 pages

ISBN:9781450375795

DOI:10.1145/3419249

General Chairs:
David Lamas
Tallinn University, Estonia
,
Hegle Sarapuu
Trinidad Wiseman, Estonia
,
Publications Chairs:
Ilja Šmorgun
Tallinn University, Estonia
,
Gerd Berget
Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 October 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

GEVAKUB

Conference

NordiCHI '20

NordiCHI '20: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

October 25 - 29, 2020

Tallinn, Estonia

Acceptance Rates

NordiCHI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate 89 of 399 submissions, 22%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
212
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)24
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 15 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kaviani FLyall BKoppel S(2024)Exploring social perceptions of everyday smartglass use in AustraliaPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.031300119:11(e0313001)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313001
Zulfikar WChan SMaes P(2024)Memoro: Using Large Language Models to Realize a Concise Interface for Real-Time Memory AugmentationProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642450(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642450
Whitmore NChan SZhang JChwalek PChin SMaes P(2024)Improving Attention Using Wearables via Haptic and Multimodal Rhythmic StimuliProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642256(1-14)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642256
Pröbster MMarsden N(2023)The Social Perception of Autonomous Delivery Vehicles Based on the Stereotype Content ModelSustainability10.3390/su1506519415:6(5194)Online publication date: 15-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065194
Sehrt JBraams BHenze NSchwind V(2022)Social Acceptability in Context: Stereotypical Perception of Shape, Body Location, and Usage of Wearable DevicesBig Data and Cognitive Computing10.3390/bdcc60401006:4(100)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6040100
Uhde Azum Hoff THassenzahl M(2022)Obtrusive Subtleness and Why We Should Focus on Meaning, not Form, in Social Acceptability StudiesProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia10.1145/3568444.3568457(89-99)Online publication date: 27-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568444.3568457
Probster MMarsden N(2021)Real Gender Barriers to Virtual Realities?2021 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)10.1109/ICE/ITMC52061.2021.9570270(1-9)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC52061.2021.9570270

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents