Culture Matters -- A Study On Presence In An Interactive Movie

Editing protocols:


review comments



{*} {o} {o}

partially done


look what the chinese have done!


ideas, need to be worked out more

Final Version




The user's character is believed to influence the user's feeling of presence. The user's cultural background is often mentioned as such a characteristic \citep{IJsselsteijn+RidderETAL-Pres:00, Freeman+LessiterETAL-IntrPres:01}. A few cross-cultural presence studies are available \citep{Chang+WangETAL-Croscommmedilear:02}, but none investigated the relationship between the user's cultural background and presence directly. This influence is, at this point in time, more of a conjecture than a proven fact, and therefore we conducted an empirical study to investigate the relationship.

In absence of a clear definition of what cultural factors may influence presence, a good approach is to include participants from clearly different cultures. Using Dutch and Chinese participants in our study optimized cultural diversion. Hofstede \citep{Hofstede-Geert:91} provides an empirical framework of culture by defining several dimensions of culture, such as power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/feminity, uncertainty avoidance and long/short-term orientation. China and the Netherlands differ substantially on all dimensions except uncertainty avoidance. Power distance, for example, refers to the extend to which less powerful members expect and accept unequal power distribution within a culture. The Netherlands rank very low on this dimension, while China ranks very high.

From an application point of view, China is currently one of the most promising economic opportunities. Its vast populace and large physical size alone mark it as a powerful global player. China's gross domestic product (GDP) growth of over seven percent indicates its steaming economic situation. Most Chinese already have access to a TV and the local TV manufacturers satisfy the domestic market. However, technology utilizing presence is not yet produced or consumed. Awareness of cultural differences in presence may help companies to create better products for the different markets.

At the same time, we were interested in distributed interactive media and their influences on the user's feeling of presence. We have entered a new media era: passive television programs become interactive with the red button on your remote control \citep{Bennett-ButtRevoPowePeop:04}. Video games come with many different controlling interfaces such as dancing mats, EyeToy\registered{} cameras, driving wheels and boxing Gametraks\texttrademark{} \citep{Games-Game:05}. The D-BOX\registered{} Odyssee\texttrademark{} motion simulation system even introduces realistic motion experiences, that were originally designer for theme parks, into our living rooms \citep{D-BOX-D-BOMotiSimu:05}. In the vision of Ambient Intelligence \citep{Aarts+Marzano-EverViewAmbiInte:03}, the next generation of people's interactive media experience will not unfold only on a computer or television, or in a head set, but in the whole physical environment. The environments involve multiple devices that enable natural interactions and adapt to the users and their needs.

Formerly, distribution only revered to the distribution of data or computational processes in a network. Ambient intelligent environments build on this technology and extend it by presenting, synchronizing and interacting with multimedia content. Previous systems already employed distribution to enhance the entertainment experience and thereby increasing the immersiveness of the content. Multichannel surround sound systems, for example, distribute sound all around the audience and hence provide a more realistic and natural sound experience. The ambient intelligence \citep{Aarts+Marzano-EverViewAmbiInte:03} concept goes beyond such sound distributions by distributing content through other channels in the user's environment. Each display in the room may, for example, show video clips and each lamp may change its color and brightness. displays in the room may show video clips, lamps may change its color and brightness, robots may dance and sing, and couches may vibrate. The virtual space or the content, then, is no longer yielded in traditional audio and video materials by one TV set, but now expanded into the user's surroundings covering more sensory modalities. The light color, robotic behavior and the couch vibration are parts of delivered content, conveying a virtual experience but with a direct physical embodiment. Ambient intelligence is therefore a distinct extension to classical virtual environments.

However, distributing interactive content to multiple devices would also increase the complexity of interaction. The environment together may become difficult to understand and to control. To ease the situation, embodied characters, such as such as eMuu \citep{} or Tony \citep{}, may be used to give such an environment a concrete face. These characters have a physical embodiment and may present content through their behavior and interact with the user through speech and body language. They can even be used as input devices.

However, the influence of embodiment on the user's presence experience seems unclear. On the one hand, embodiment extends the distributed content from an on-screen virtual environment to a physical environment. The physical embodiment improves the content's liveness and fidelity by stimulating more sensors of the user. This might result in an increased feeling of presence \citep{Lombart+Ditton-Hear:97}. On the other hand, the physical embodiment may transfer more attention from the virtual environment to the physical environment. The physical embodiment may remind the user of its existence in this world and may break down the illusion of \emph{being there} and hence would result in less feeling of presence \citep{Freeman+LessiterETAL-IntrPres:01}. The division of attention itself might also have such an effect.

To control interactive content, the user requires interaction devices. A physical embodiment would invite direct manipulation. A robot could, for example, ask the use to touch its shoulder to select an option. Interaction with a virtual on-screen character may favor the use of a remote control. Embodiment in interactive media can therefore not be studied without considering the interaction method. We therefore included two interaction methods in our study.

In this framework of interactive distributed media we defined the following three research questions: \begin{enumerate}




We conducted a 2 (Interaction) $\times$ 2 (Embodiment) $\times$ 2 (Culture) mixed between/within experiment (see \fref{fig:TheInterview_conditions}). Interaction and culture were the between participant factors. Interaction had the conditions \expcondition{RemoteControl} and \expcondition{DirectTouch}, and culture had the conditions Dutch and Chinese. Embodiment was a within participant factor. Embodiment had the conditions \expcondition{ScreenAgent} and \expcondition{Robot}.




The original ITC-SOPI \citep{Lessiter+FreemanETAL-CrosPresQues:01} questionnaire was used and only the definition of the \emph{Displayed Environment} in the introduction was adjusted to include the robot/screen character. The Chinese participants had a good understanding of the English language and therefore no validated translation was necessary for them. The questions remained unchanged and are clustered into four groups: \begin{inparaenum}



\subsection{Participants} $19$ Chinese and $24$ Dutch between the age of $16$ and $48$ ($14$ female, $29$ male) participated in the experiment. Most of them were students and teachers from Eindhoven University of Technology, with various backgrounds in computer science, industrial design, electronic engineering, chemistry, mathematics and technology management. The Chinese participants were no longer than two years in the Netherlands. All participants had good command of the English language and were frequently exposed to English speaking media, such as movies, web pages, news papers and TV show.



The experiment took place in a living room laboratory (see \fref{fig:TheInterview_setup}). The participants were seated on a couch in front of a table. The coach was $3.5m$ away from the main screen, which was projected onto a wall in front. The projection had a size of $2.5m \times 1.88m$ with $1400 \times 1050$ pixels. The second screen was located $0.5m$ from the coach, standing on the table. The secondary screen was $30cm\times23cm$ with $1280 \times 1024$ pixels LCD touch screen (Philips DesXcape Smart Display).



In the \expcondition{Robot} conditions, the secondary touch screen was replaced with a Lego robot that had about the same height. In the \expcondition{ScreenAgent} conditions, the secondary screen displayed a full screen agent of the robot.

The behavior of the screen based agent and the Lego robot were identical. They played the role of a TV companion by looking randomly at the user and the screen, but always looking at the user while speaking. Speakers were hidden under the table and were used to produce the speech, which was based on the standard Apple Speech Synthesis software. At the start of every movie, the character introduced himself and its role.

Since a media content that is acceptable in one culture can be perceived inappropriate, rude or offensive in another \citep{Lu+Walker-theyLookEducMult:99}, the movie was designed to be culturally neutral. The movie had an international cast: the applicant was played by a Moroccan, the employer by a Dutch, the secretary by an American, and the passer-by by a Chilean. The actors spoke English. This study does not investigate the influence of media content on presence and therefore the story and movie cuts were neither too exciting nor too boring for both, Dutch and Chinese participants. Otherwise they might have masked the effects of embodiment and culture.

The interactive approximately 10 minutes movie was about a job interview in which the participants had to make decisions for the applicant. The story line was discussed with several Chinese and Dutch to assure that the actions of the characters would be plausible in both cultures. The movie had two decision points, which resulted in four possible movie endings (see figure ). The participants chose different options for decisions almost all the time. At every decision point camera would zoom in on the applicant's forehead (see figure ). The actor then cycled through two options in his mind. He looked first to the left and thought aloud about one option, before he looked right and thought aloud about the second option. In the \expcondition{remote} condition the screen would show one icon on the left and a different icon on the right. The icons were identical to two icons on the remote control. In the \expcondition{robot} condition, the participant had to touch the left or the right shoulder of the robot to make the decision.

% ""cb: I added a see figure. Please add figure and reference!""




After reading an introduction that explained the structure of the experiment the participants started with a training session. In this session, the participants watched an unrelated interactive movie that had only one decision point, during which the participants could make the decision using the remote control. Afterwards, they had the opportunity to ask questions about the process of the experiment. Next, the participant were randomly assigned to one of the between-participant conditions, which each consisted of two movies and a questionnaire after each movie. The participant received five Euros for their efforts.



% I do not understand this comment.

The mean scores for all measurements, including their standard deviations are presented in \fref{tab:TheInterview_mean_stddev} and graphically in \fref{fig:TheInterview_means}.



\subsection{Embodiment, interaction and culture effect}

\subsection{Embodiment, interaction and culture effect}

A 2 (embodiment) $\times$ 2 (interaction) $\times$ 2 (culture) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Interaction had no significant influence on any of the measurements. Embodiment and culture both had significant influence on almost all measurements (see \fref{tab:TheInterview_embodiment}).


Interaction was removed as a factor from the further analyses since it had no effect on the measurements. The means for all remaining conditions are summarized in \fref{fig:TheInterview_nationality_embodiment} and were used as the basis for the further analyses.


Paired Sample t-Tests were performed across both culture conditions. The measurements for Spatial Presence were significantly ($t(42)=2.235$, $p=0.031$) higher in the \expcondition{ScreenAgent} condition than in the \expcondition{Robot} condition. Negative Effects were significantly ($t(42)=2.38$, $p=0.022$) higher in the \expcondition{Robot} condition than in the \expcondition{ScreenAgent} condition.

Independent Samples t-Tests were performed. All measurements between the Dutch and the Chinese participants differed significantly, except for engage in the screen condition, which just missed the significance level ($t(41)=2.007$, $p=0.051$).




\subsection{Culture difference theory}

\subsection{Culture difference theory}

(!) Hofstede's 5 dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-feminity, individualism-collectivisim, long or short term orientation \citep{Hofstede-CultRelaOrgaPrac:83, Hofstede-Cultconsmanatheo:93}. Except the masculinity-feminity dimension, the other for can be used for our discussions. Robots are often perceived as living beings - interaction with robots is more like interacting with humans than with other machines - the power distance and indiv-collec can then apply (how?). what about uncertainty avoidance?

(!) According to \citet{Hofstede-Cultconsmanatheo:93}, Chinese and Dutch are different animals :). a table here? \Citet{Peppas-corevalu:04} points out that Chinese culture is much influenced by the 2000-year history of Confucianism, based on an intensive overview on the studies on Chinese culture. Confucianism, as a morel system, defines three cardinal guides (ruler guides subject, father guides son and husband guides wife) and five constant virtues (humanity, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and fidelity). It roots the Chinese culture has high power distance, low individualism, medium masculinity and uncertainty avoidance, and very much of long term orientation. Living in harmony, maintaining a good social network, and protecting one's \emph{face} are important in Chinese society.

Comparing to Chinese, Dutch culture has much less power distance (means more equality and modest leadership), much higher individualism, more femininity, similar uncertainty avoidance and it is short term oriented. Maintaining the consensus (although it is often time consuming), and being (even pretending to be) modest are considered important in Dutch culture.

(!) The story, about a job interview, has a section of the applicant negotiating his salary with his future boss during the very first meeting. There is nothing wrong for Dutch people, but it is not a common behavior of a traditional Chinese. However, time changes. The modern Chinese are working in an open and competitive job market, salary negotiation, especially in international companies, is nothing new.


\subsection{Culture effects}

\subsection{Culture effects} {zh}

The participants' cultural background clearly influenced the measurements. Chinese participants perceived more presence than Dutch participants in all conditions. One might suspect that the Chinese participants might simply be more polite in answering questions. Our measurements show that they also gave higher scores to Negative Effects and therefore did not simply respond politely. The next question will be what aspects of the cultural background have the greatest influence on presence. \Citet{Hofstede-Geert:91} suggested several categories through which cultures and organizations may be characterized, but none of them appear relevant to presence at first sight. One might speculate that the long-term orientation in Chinese culture would result in more patience towards imperfections. They might have more easily tolerated the noise emitted by the robot and the occasional visibility of a microphone in the movie. Further studies are necessary to investigate this issue.

\subsection{Embodiment effects}

\subsection{Embodiment effects}

The influence of embodiment on all measurements does not conform to the expected results defined in the construct of presence. If the user experiences high presence then all measurements should be high, including Negative Effects.

Furthermore, Spatial Presence should be positively correlated with Negative Effects. However, in our results Spatial Presence and Naturalness are higher in the \expcondition{ScreenAgent} condition, while Negative Effects was higher in the \expcondition{Robot} condition. Negative Effects appear to have been affected by something else than presence.

During the experiment, the robot's motor emitted noise, which caused the participants to look at it. A moving physical object is potentially dangerous and hence attracts attention. Clearly, the robot emphasized the participants feeling of being in the room and not in the movie and thereby reducing the presence experience. The screen character did not emit noise and is unable to pose physical danger to the user. It therefore did not attract as much attention as the robot.

The participants were frequently switching between looking at the movie and the robot and hence divide their attention. This switching made it hard for the users to stay focused and might cause the high negative experience. \Citet{Eggen+FeijsETAL-BreaFlowIntecomp:03} showed that a divided attention space reduced the users immersion. Further research is necessary to determine if divided attention increases the negative effects of multiple displays. The extra costs necessary to build and maintain a robot for an interactive movie appear unjustified in relation to its benefit.

The different interaction methods (using a remote control or touching directly) had no influence on the measurements. The participants did not experience more or less presence when they interacted with a remote control or with the screen/robot directly. This is to some degree surprising, since the participants had to lean forward to touch the screen/robot directly, while they could remain leaned back using the remote. The necessity to make a choice might have overshadowed the difference in physical movement. To create compelling sense of presence it might be useful to pay more attention to the physical output than to the input.

\subsection{Future Research}

\subsection{Future Research} In this study, several factors were investigated besides the cultural background of the participants. It might be beneficial to conduct a dedicated study on the influence of culture on presence. Such a study could then also cover more than the two cultures investigated in this study. In addition, it appears necessary to further connect the results of such a study to existing results in other research areas, such as cross-cultural communication studies. Qualitative interview might help to gain better insights into to social and cultural viewpoints of the participants in relation to presence.

Ambient Intelligence is currently a major research theme in the European academic and commercial world, but the results of this study show that cultural aspects do play a role in the design of future technology. Given China's rapid grow and potential, it might be valuable to include an "Eastern Perspective" into the European research, in particular since more and more consumer electronics are produced and consumed in Asia.



The authors would like to thank Loe Feijs, Maddy Jansen and Kees Overbeeke for their help and support. In addition, we would like to thank all participants of the study.




Very interesting study and results, but the paper as written is unnecessarily difficult to follow and leaves out some important detail.

Overall, a very interesting paper to read, but much more can and should be added to it.


This is a good start at exploring other individual differences that may impact the levels of presence experienced by media users. The manuscript is terse, but to the point. I think the manuscript would make an interesting presentation but I do not recommend it for publication. The following are some areas/items to consider for revision.

  1. The introduction is very short for this manuscript. The author(s) go directly from intro into the methods. I understand there is not a lot of literature on presence and cultural differences, but I assume there is literature on cultural difference and use of technologies (I am familiar with citations).
  2. The images in Figure 2 are reversed
  3. The description of the procedures left me with several questions?
    1. What were the participants told they were doing? Were they told the purpose of the study or given a “cover” story?
    2. The person in the stimulus movie needs to be described. Was he Chinese? Or European? I was wondering about the participants identifying with the actor.
    3. How was the film presented? Perhaps the Chinese students felt the film was something important for them to learn about Dutch culture?
  4. pg 2, para 3, The author(s) refer to the film as being designed “to be neither too exciting or too boring.” What were these decisions based on? Citations?
  5. Related to this issue in #4, was the film pretested?
  6. The results for the use of screen agents versus robots are interesting. But the discussion only touches on the differences between the two for negative effects. Can the author(s) offer an explanation for the difference between the groups (both nationalities and experimental conditions).


The paper presents the results of a study where 3 variables were manipulated (Culture, Interaction and Embodiment) in order to examine their influence on some dimensions of presence.

I appreciated the originality of the study, its structure and the insights that can derive from its results. With the abovementioned aspects clarified will it be possible to interpret the results.

JunHu: JunHu/Publications/PresenceConference2005 (last edited 2008-10-03 20:20:40 by localhost)