Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Virtual Interpersonal Touch and Digital Chameleons

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We studied the characteristics of hand touch with a mechanical device that approximated a handshake, and we then examined the effect of handshake mimicry on assessment of a partner. Two participants interacted with a force-feedback joystick that recorded each of their hand movements individually. The two participants then greeted one another by feeling the recording of the other person’s movements via the force-feedback device. For each dyad, one of the participants actually received his or her own virtual handshake back under the guise that it was the other person’s virtual handshake. Results demonstrated three significant findings. First, for any given participant, a metric that took into account position, angle, speed, and acceleration of the hand movements correlated highly within individuals across two handshakes. Second, across participants, these metrics demonstrated specific differences by gender. Finally, there was an interaction between gender and mimicry, such that male participants liked people who mimicked their handshakes more than female participants did. We discuss the implications of these findings and relate them to theories of social interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We realize that our virtual device is an extremely loose approximation of an actual handshake, and refer to the notion of “virtual interpersonal touch” when describing the participants’ experience whenever possible. However, in order to maintain readability in the paper we sometimes use the word handshake.

  2. We could not use the duration of the handshake as a measure because there was very little variance in the length of time people used the handshake machine.

  3. Because the main variable of interest (mimic vs. normal) was manipulated within-dyad (i.e., one member of the dyad mimicked the other), it was not possible to do the dyadic analysis for either the mimicry condition or the interaction between gender and mimicry. However, we tested the main effect of gender by dyad, which was not significant, t(63) = 0.11, p < 0.91, d = 0.03.

References

  • Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Astrom, J. (1994). Introductory greeting behaviour: A laboratory investigation of approaching and closing salutation phases. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 79, 863–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrom, J., & Thorell, L. (1996). Greeting behaviour and psychogenic need: Interviews on experiences of therapists, clergymen, and car salesmen. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 83, 939–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrom, J., Thorell, L., Holmlund, U., & d′Elia, G. (1993). Handshaking, personality, and psychopathology in psychiatric patients: A reliability and correlational study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 77, 1171–1186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J., & Yee, N. (2005). Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science, 16, 814–819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M., (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J., Beall, A., Loomis, J., Blascovich, J., & Turk, M. (2004). Transformed social interaction: Decoupling representation from behavior and form in collaborative virtual environments. Presence, 13(4), 428–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J. N., Beall, A. C., Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., & Turk, M. (2005). Transformed social interaction, augmented gaze, and social influence in immersive virtual environments. Human Communication Research, 31, 511–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Brave, S., Merget, D., & Koslow, D. (2007). Virtual interpersonal touch: Expressing and recognizing emotions through haptic devices. Human-Computer Interaction (in press).

  • Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A., Swinth, K., Hoyt, C., & Bailenson, J. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boczkowski, P. (2004). Digitizing the news. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 233–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J., & Walther, J. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, J., & Panalp, A. (1981). Talk and silence sequences in informal conversations: Interspeaker influence. Human Communication Research, 7, 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin, W. F., Phillips, J. B., Brown, J. D., Clanton, N. R., & Stein, J. L. (2000). Handshaking, gender, personality, and first impressions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79, 110–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76, 893–910l.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheek, J. M. (1983). The revised cheek and buss shyness scale. Wellesly, MA: Wellesly College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crusco, A. H., & Wetzel, C. G. (1984). The Midas touch: The effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 512–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L., Johnson, J., Eber, H., Hogan, R., Ashton, M., Cloninger, C., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gue′guen, N. (2002). Status, apparel and touch: Their joint effects on compliance to a request. Studia Psychologica, 44, 167–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. (1996). Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayduk, L. (1983). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 293–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornik, J. (1991). Shopping time and purchasing behavior as a result of in-store tactile stimulation. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 73, 963–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, C., Blascovich, J., & Swinth, K. (2003). Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence, 12, 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, A., Tsuji, A., Williams, C., & Seatriz, V. (2003). Effects of touch on gratuities received in same-gender and cross-gender dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2427–2438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, D., & Mahoney, J. (1999). The effect of waitresses’ touch on alcohol consumption in dyads. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 261–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, A. (1970). Movement coordination in social interactions. Acta Psychologica, 32(2), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinke, C. L. (1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. Journal of Experimental & Social Psychology, 13, 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, M. (1982). Posture mirroring and rapport. In M. Davis (ed.), Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communicative behavior (pp. 279–298). New York: Human Sciences Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, M., & Broadbent, M. (1976). Group rapport: Posture sharing as a nonverbal indicator. Group and Organizational Studies, 1, 328–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(3), 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Guerrero, L. (2001). Types of touch in cross-sex relationships between coworkers: Perceptions of relational and emotional messages, inappropriateness, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannix, E., Tinsley, C., & Bazerman, M. (1995). Negotiating over time: Impediments to integrative solutions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 62, 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. (1972). Help, likability, and social influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 134–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, E. (1934). Etiquette: The blue book of social usage. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine, R. (1986). Yawning as a stereotyped action pattern and releasing stimulus. Ethology, 72, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provine, R. (1992). Contagious laughter: Laughter is sufficient stimulus for laughs and smiles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mob: The next revolution. New York: Perseus Book Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, R., & Zweigenhaft, R. (1985). The effect on tipping of a waitress touching male and female customers. Journal of Social Psychology., 126, 141–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Steenaert, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 393–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15(1), 71–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderbilt, A. (1957). Amy Vanderbilt’s complete book of etiquette. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorderer P., & Bryant J. (Eds.) (2006). Playing computer games: Motives, responses, and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardell, D., & Weymouth, K. (2004). Review of studies of healing touch. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36, 147–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yabar, Y., Johnston, L., Miles, L., & Peace, V. (2006). Implicit behavioral mimicry: Investigating the impact of group membership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 209–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y., Fulk, J., Shumate, M., Monge, R. P., Bryant, J. A., & Matsaganis, M. (2005). Individual participation in organizational information commons: The impact of team level social influence and technology-specific proficiency. Human Communication Research, 31, 212–240.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The current work was partially supported by National Science Foundation (NSF)Grant 0527377.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Stanford University, McClatchy Hall, Bldg. 120, Stanford, CA, 94305-2050, USA

    Jeremy N. Bailenson & Nick Yee

Authors
  1. Jeremy N. Bailenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nick Yee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy N. Bailenson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bailenson, J.N., Yee, N. Virtual Interpersonal Touch and Digital Chameleons. J Nonverbal Behav 31, 225–242 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-007-0034-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-007-0034-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation