介面角色(interface character)可能是電腦程式本身，或者屬於介面的一個部份。它可能擁有透過面部表情、身體語言、手勢或口語跟使用者進行溝通的能力。由於介面角色可以採用一般人際互動最自然的溝通方式來與使用者互動，因此它將會是未來扮演介面與使用者間重要的溝通角色。然而根據電腦即社會行為者典範(Computer As a Social Actor, CASA)及媒體等式(media equation)，使用者會採用人際間的一般社交規則應用在電腦人機互動中，這即代表使用者與介面角色互動不但可能會帶來正面的效應外，也可能產生負面的效應。因此參考人際互動中的相關社會心理學研究，來討論是否會應用在電腦介面角色將會很重要。本研究即針對幾個主題如「美就是好」、「月暈效應」、「個性相似吸引」及「個性互補吸引」及「性別」等，來探究介面角色之外表美醜、與使用者個性之搭配(個性相似或個性互補)及使用者之性別等因素對使用者在角色吸引、社交表徵及滿意度上之影響。

本研究採用2 x 2 x 2的實驗設計，自變項為角色外表美感(美、醜)、角色與使用者之個性搭配(相似、互補)及使用者性別(男、女)。應變項為角色吸引(親近感、距離感)、社交表徵感知及角色滿意度。本研究的任務為介面角色對受測者進行西洋繪畫的導覽活動，受測者所面對的介面角色為一女性形象的漫畫式人物，其個性及外表皆經過設計以符合本研究之自變項。研究結果顯示雖然美角色在互動前後較能夠增加角色親近感、社交表徵，並減少距離感。但醜角色也會增加親近感及減少距離感，這表示與使用者的互動內容將會改善原本外表所帶來的負面效應。另外，由於內向或外向個性皆設計為協助使用者進行任務，會發現無論使用者本身個性為何，皆會喜歡這樣的內向或外向個性設計。而另外女性受測者會展現對女性醜角色的同理心，在美感分數上會顯著高於男性受測者。最後，社交表徵在角色互動中扮演著相當重要的因素，高程度的社交表徵將會帶來較好的滿意度。本研究結果建議未來設計電腦介面角色時，應注意其互動內容之設計，因使用者在與角色互動後，會改變其原本外表所帶來的第一印象。另一方面，透過角色的擬人程度、語言線索及肢體語言等，提高角色的社交表徵程度將會讓介面角色更讓使用者滿意。最後應注意介面角色及使用者間也會因性別而產生不同效應，並且性別之效應可做為未來研究之參考。

An interface character might be the computer program itself or may be part of an interface; it might be equipped with the ability to communicate with users via facial expression, body language, gestures or verbal communication. Since interface characters can communicate with users in the most natural way as interpersonal communication, they therefore play an important role in communicating between interfaces and users. According to the paradigm of “Computer as a social actor”, users interact with each other based on social rules, meaning that as well as having a positive impact, interface characters can also have a negative impact on the users. Therefore, we can refer to related social-psychology research on interpersonal interaction to explore if the rules can also be applied to computer interface characters. This research explores many social science subjects such as “Beauty is good,” “Halo effects,” “similarity-attraction,” “complementarity-attraction,” and “gender differences” to exam the effects of the physical attractiveness and personality of computer interface characters on the engagement, social presence and satisfaction of users of both genders.

This study uses a 2 x 2 x 2 experimental design, with the independent variables being physical attractiveness (beauty and ugly), personality similarity or complementarity and the genders of participants (males and females). The dependent variables are engagement (involvement and distance), social presence and satisfaction with the interface characters. In the task undertaken for this study, participants are guided by a female cartoon character to do a tour of western paintings; the personalities and the appearance of the interface characters are designed for the independent variables. The results demonstrate that although beautiful interface characters can increase the user’s sense of involvement and social presence, and can decrease the sense of distance, ugly interface characters can also increase the sense of involvement, and decrease the sense of distance. This means that the content of the interaction between users and interface characters decreases the negative effects of appearance on the participants. Furthermore, because all kinds of interface characters are designed to assist in users’ tasks, no matter what kind of personality the participants are, they like the extroverted or introverted interface characters. Besides, female participants show their empathy to the ugly female interface characters, giving higher aesthetics ratings than males. Social presence also plays an important role in the interaction between interface characters and participants: higher social presence brings higher satisfaction. The results of this study suggest that designers should pay more attention to the contents of the interaction because users will change their first impressions caused by the physical attractiveness of interface characters after they interact with them. On the other hand, increasing the social presence of interface characters via the degrees of anthropopathy, language cues and body language will increase users’ satisfaction. However, designers should also pay attention to the different effects between interface characters and users caused by different genders.

【中文部份】
大山正. (民87). 色彩心理學：追隨牛頓和哥德的腳步 (牧村出版社, Trans. 初版 ed.). 台北市: 牧村.
許功餘, 王登峰, & 楊國樞. (2001). 台灣與大陸華人基本性格向度的比較. 本土心理學研究, 16, 185-224.
野村順一. (民89). Color Magic顏色魔法書 (李曄, Trans. 初版 ed.). 台北市: 方智.
溫芳瑜. (2005). 電腦為社會行動者-透過巴南效應探討網路使用者與介面視覺元素之互動關係. 國立清華大學, 新竹.
【英文部份】
Anderson, R., & Nida, S. A. (1978). Effect of physical attractiveness on opposite- and same-sex evaluations. Journal of Personality, 46(3), 401-413.
Aronson, E., & Linder, D. (1965). Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1(2), 156-171.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impression of personality. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 41(3), 258-290.
Bar-Tal, D., & Saxe, L. (1976). Physical attractiveness and its relationship to sex-role stereotyping. Sex Roles, 2(2), 123-133.
Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 122-125.
Beun, R.-J., de Vos, E., & Witteman, C. (2003). Embodied conversational agents: Effects on memory performance and anthropomorphisation. Paper presented at the IVA 2003, Irsee, Germany.
Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: embodiment in virtual environments. Paper presented at the Cognitive Technology 1997, Aizu-Wakamatsu City, Japan.
Brave, S., Nass, C., & Hutchinson, K. (2005). Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(2), 161-178.
Caporael, L. R. (1986). Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine. Computers in Human Behavior, 2(3), 215-234.
Carli, L. L., Ganley, R., & Pierce-Otay, A. (1991). Similarity and satisfaction in roommate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(4), 419-426.

Catrambone, R., Stasko, J., & Xiao, J. (2002). Anthropomorphic agents as a user interface paradigm: Experimental findings and a framework for research. Paper presented at the CogSci 2002, Fairfax, Virginia.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., & Reimann, P. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
Choi, Y. K., Miracle, G. E., & Biocca, F. (2001). The effects of anthropomorphic agents on advertising effectiveness and the mediating role of presence. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2(1), 3-21.
Clifford, M. M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. Sociology of Education, 46(2), 248-258.
Clore, G. L., Wiggins, N. H., & Itkin, S. (1975). Gain and loss in attraction: Attributions from nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 706-712.
Dehn, D. M., & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1 - 22.
Dion, K. (1973). Young children's stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 183-188.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290.
Dryer, D. C. (1999). Getting personal with computers: how to design personalities for agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 273-295.
Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 592-603.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109-128.
Elliott, C., Rickel, J., & Lester, J. C. (1997). Integrating affective computing into animated tutoring agents. Paper presented at the IJCAI-97, Nagoya, Japan.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Foley, J. D., van Dam, A., Feiner, S. K., & Hughes, J. F. (1990). Computer graphics: principles and practice (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3-4), 143-166.
Gainotti, G., Silveri, M. C., Daniele, A., & Giustolisi, L. (1995). Neuroanatomical Correlates of Category-specific Semantic Disorders: A Critical Survey. Memory, 3, 247 - 264.
Gallaher, P. E. (1992). Individual differences in nonverbal behavior: dimensions of style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(1), 133-145.
Gifford, R. (1991). Mapping nonverbal behavior on the interpersonal circle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 279-288.
Gross, A. E., & Crofton, C. (1977). What is good is beautiful. Sociometry, 40(1), 85-90.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
Hara, F., & Kobayashi, H. (1995). Use of face robot for human-computer communication. Paper presented at the 1995 IEEE International Conferences on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vancouver, Canada.
Hartz, A. J. (1996). Psycho-socionomics: Attractiveness research from a societal perspective. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 683-694.
Isbister, K., & Nass, C. (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters: verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 251-267.
Izard, C. E. (1960). Persoanlity similarity and friendship. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 61(1), 47-51.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated Pedagogical Agents: Face-to-Face Interaction in Interactive Learning Environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Eucation, 11, 47-78.
Johnston, V. S., & Oliver-Rodriguez, J. C. (1997). Facial beauty and the late positive component of event-related potentials. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(2), 188-198.
Jordan, P. W. (1998). Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied Ergonomics, 29(1), 25-33.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kay, A. (1990). User interface: A personal view. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Keil, F. C. (1994). The birth and nurturance of concepts by domains: The origins of concepts of living things. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 234 - 254). New York: Cambridge University Press.
King, W. J., & Ohya, J. (1996, April 13-18). The Representation of Agents: Anthropomorphism Agency and Intelligence. Paper presented at the CHI '96, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Koda, T., & Maes, P. (1996). Agents with faces: The effect of personification. Paper presented at the RO-MAN'96, Tsukuba, Japan.
Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2005). Some like it bad: Testing a model for perceiving and experiencing fictional characters. Media Psychology, 7, 104-144.
Kurosu, M., & Ksahimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability. Paper presented at the CHI '95, Denver, United States.
Lafferty, J. C., Eady, P., & Pond, A. W. (1970). The Desert Survival Situation. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.
Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 269-298.
Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
Lee, E. J. (2003). Effect of "gender" of the computer on informational social influence: The moderating role oftask type. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 347-362.
Lee, E. J., & Nass, C. (1999). Effects of the form of representation and number of computer agents on conformity. Paper presented at the CHI '99, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27-50.
Lee, K. M., Jung, Y., Kim, J., & Kim, S. R. (2006). Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human-robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 962-973.
Lee, K. M., & Nass, C. (2003). Designing Social Presence of Social Actors in Human Computer Interaction. Paper presented at the CHI 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
Lee, K. M., Peng, W., Jin, S.-A., & Yan, C. (2006). Can Robots Manifest Personality?: An Empirical Test of Personality Recognition, Social Responses, and Social Presence in Human-Robot Interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 754-772.
Leon, G. R., Lucas, A. R., Colligan, R. C., Ferdinande, R. J., & John, K. (1985). Sexual, body-image, and personality attitudes in anorexia nervosa Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13(2), 245-258.
Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997, 22-27 March). The Persona Effect: Affective Impact of Animated Pedagogical Agents. Paper presented at the CHI '97, Atlanta, GA USA.
Lester, J. C., & Stone, B. A. (1997). Increasing believability in animated pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the AGENTS' 97, Marina del Rey, California, USA.
Lindgaard, G., & Dudek, C. (2002). User Satisfaction, Aesthetics and Usability: Beyond Reductionism. Paper presented at the IFIP 17th World Computer Congress - TC13 Stream on Usability: Gaining a Competitive Edge, Montréal, Canada.
Lindgaard, G., & Dudek, C. (2003). What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interacting with Computers, 15(3), 429-452.
Lippa, R. A., & Dietz, J. K. (2000). The relation of gender, personality, and intelligence to judges' accuracy in judging strangers' personality from brief video segments. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(1), 25-43.

Maes, P. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 30 - 40.
Marcus, A. (1992). Graphic design for electronic documents and user interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the Five-Factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586-595.
Mettee, D. R., Taylor, S. E., & Friedman, H. (1973). Affect Conversion and the Gain-Loss Liking Effect. Sociometry, 36(4).
Moon, Y., & Nass, C. (1996). How "real" are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction Communication Research, 23(6), 651-674.
Moskowitz, D. S. (1988). Cross-situational generality in the laboratory: Dominance and friendliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 829-839.
Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 253-261.
Nass, C. (2004). Etiquette equality: Exhibitions and expectations of computer politeness. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 35-37.
Nass, C., & Lee, K. M. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3), 171-181.

Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B., & Dryer, D. C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 223-239.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E., & Reeder, H. (1993). Anthropomorphism, agency, & ethopoeia: Computers as social actors. Paper presented at the CHI '93, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are Social Actors. Paper presented at the CHI '94, Boston, Massachusetts USA.
Newcomb, T. M. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11(11), 575-586.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
Norman, D. A. (1994). How might people interact with agents? Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 68-71.
Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The Effect fo the Agency and Anthropomorphism on Users' Sense of Telepresence, Copresence, and Social Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence, 12(5), 481 - 494.
Patzer, G. L. (1985). The physical attractiveness phenomena. New York: Plenum Press.
Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality : theory and research (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media like Real People and Places. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Schenkman, B. N., & Jönsson, F. U. (2000). Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(5), 367-377.

Schmitt, D. P. (2002). Personality, attachment and sexuality related to dating relationship outcomes: Contrasting three perspectives on personal attribute interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 589-610.
Shneiderman, B. (1983). Direct manipulation: A step beyoun programming languages. Computer, 16(8), 57 - 69.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J. H., & Waters, K. (1996). When the Interface Is a Face. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 97-124.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Takeuchi, A., & Naito, T. (1995). Situated facial displays: towards social interaction. Paper presented at the CHI '95, Denver, USA.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.
Tognazzini, B. (1992). Tog on interface. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Steiger, D. M. (2003). Humanizing self-administered surveys: experiments on social presence in web and IVR surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 1-24.
Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. Paper presented at the CHI '97, Atlanta, United States.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127-145.

Turkle, S. (2005). The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit (1st MIT Press ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Uleman, J. S., Hon, A., Roman, R. J., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). On-line evidence for spontaneous trait inferences at encoding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 377-394.
van Mulken, S., André, E., & Müller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? Paper presented at the HCI 98, Sheffield, UK.
van Vugt, H. C., Hoorn, J. F., Konijn, E. A., & de Bie Dimitriadou, A. (2006). Affective affordances: Improving interface character engagement through interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 874-888.
van Vugt, H. C., Konijn, E. A., Hoorn, J. F., & Keur, E. I. (2005). Emotional engagement with embodied agents. Paper presented at the Workshop on Emotion and Interaction as a poster, Paris, France.
van Vugt, H. C., Konijn, E. A., Hoorn, J. F., Keur, I., & Eliens, A. (2007). Realisim is not all! User engagement with task-related interface characters. Interacting with Computers, 19, 267-280.
Walker, J. H., Sproull, L., & Subramani, R. (1994). Using a Human Face in an Interface. Paper presented at the CHI '94, Boston, Massachusetts USA.
Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107(3), 829 - 854.
Wilson, M. (1997). Metaphor to personality: The role of animation in intelligent interface agents. Paper presented at the IJCAI '97, Nagoya, Japan.
Winograd, T. (1996). Profile: Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines. In T. Winograd, J. Bennett, L. D. Young & B. Hartfield (Eds.), Bringing design to software (pp. 81-85). Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7(3), 225-240.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.