Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Lee Sproull

dblp:96/1973 · also Lee S. Sproull · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2000
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 4 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Human-AI interaction · 58% User interface design and tools · 25% Games and playful interaction · 10%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational social science and digital humanities
social capital
0.012000
Beyond bowling together · CSCW 2000
Computational social science and digital humanities › political science
civic participation
0.012000
Beyond bowling together · CSCW 2000
Computational social science and digital humanities
social network analysis
0.012000
Beyond bowling together · CSCW 2000

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

questionnaire · 0.0controlled experiment · 0.0questionnaire study · 0.0experimental comparison · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2000 Beyond bowling together
abstract
No abstract available.
Paul Resnick, Tora K. Bikson, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, Robert D. Putnam, Lee Sproull, Barry Wellman
CSCW5
1996 My Partner is a Real Dog: Cooperation with Social Agents
abstract
We investigated how cooperation with a computer agent was affected by the agent's pictorial realism, humanlikeness, and likability.Participants played a social dilemma game with a talking computer agent that resembled a person, a dog, or a cartoon dog, or with a confederate interacting through a video link.Participants cooperated highly with the person computer agent and with the confederate.They loved the dog and dog cartoon agents, but (excepting dog owners), significantly less with the dog agents, questionnaire results suggest likability than respect in prompting cooperation agent.
Salvatore Parise, Sara B. Kiesler, Lee Sproull, Keith Waters
CSCW3
1996 When the Interface Is a Face
abstract
People behave differently in the presence of other people than they do when they are alone. People also may behave differently when designers introduce more human-like qualities into computer interfaces. In an experimental study we demonstrate that people's responses to a talking-face interface differ from their responses to a text-display interface. They attribute some personality traits to it; they are more aroused by it; they present themselves in a more positive light. We use theories of person perception, social facilitation, and self-presentation to predict and interpret these results. We suggest that as computer interfaces become more "human-like," people who use those interfaces may change their own personas in response to them.
Lee Sproull, Mani R. Subramani, Sara B. Kiesler, Janet H. Walker, Keith Waters
Hum. Comput. Interact.1
1994 Using a human face in an interface
abstract
We investigated subjects’ responses to a synthesized talking face displayed on a computer screen in the context of a questionnaire study. Compared to subjects who answered questions presented via text display on a screen, subjects who answered the same questions spoken by a talking face spent more time, made fewer mistakes, and wrote more comments. When we compared responses to two different talking faces, subjects who answered questions spoken by a stern face, compared to subjects who answered questions spoken by a neutral face, spent more time, made fewer mistakes, and wrote more comments. They also liked the experience and the face less. We interpret this study in the light of desires to anthropomorphize computer interfaces and suggest that incautiously adding human characteristics, like face, voice, and facial expressions, could make the experience for users worse rather than better.
Janet H. Walker, Lee Sproull, R. Subramani
CHI2