A Responsive Templating Approach for Collaborative Innovation Activities in Virtual Environments

(1)

37

P. Zheng et al. (eds.), EAI International Conference on Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Education, EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16130-9_3

for Collaborative Innovation Activities:

A Responsive Templating Approach

Oluwatimilehin Salako, Michael Gardner, and Vic Callaghan

1 Introduction

Virtual environments including 2D and 3D virtual worlds and use of immersive multimedia technologies provide new opportunities for collaborative tasks and innovation tasks. Also, these environments and technologies can support distant collaboration enabling users to interact more naturally giving the feeling of “being there”. Collaboration in the real world gives users benefits beyond distance collaboration in multi-user 2D and 3D virtual environments. Users collaborating in the real world in face-to-face meetings enjoy the natural benefits of collaboration including being in the real environment and live social interactions. Real world environments also are relatively easy to customize but may have limited customization features.

Virtual environments including 2D and 3D worlds are more difficult to customize for non-technical users as they would need to possess the technical/programming skills in order to create and customize these environments. Also, virtual 2D and 3D environments have a very wide set of possible features which could be customized and may allow more flexibility. Furthermore, virtual worlds possess more deployment affordances which could provide users benefits beyond the real world. This work aims at devising means by which end-users can easily generate and customize virtual worlds for collaboration and innovation activities and also explore virtual world affordances. The problem space and affordances for virtual worlds are different to real worlds. This research explores the problem space and affordances of virtual worlds and how they can be used to enhance collaboration and innovation activities.

O. Salako (*) · M. Gardner · V. Callaghan

Department of Computer Science, University of Essex, Colchester, UK e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

(2)

2 Related Work

A previous research by Joshi [1] investigated the integration of virtual worlds with information systems and learning management systems. Researchers such as Kemp and Livingstone [2] and Azar et al. [3] have explored the automatic creation of spaces and customization of rooms from architectural plans. Others [4–6] have adopted the use of end-user development and meta-design in virtual worlds. Fischer et al. [4] explain that meta-design characterizes techniques, objectives and processes for creating new media and environments allowing end-users to act as design- ers. They point out that the basic objective of meta-design is to create socio-technical environments that empower users to actively engage in continuous development of systems rather than being restricted to the use of existing systems. Caruso et al. [6]

also explored this approach in their research allowing end-users to design the environment and tailor virtual 3D objects. In our work, we are more concerned with empowering end-users to be involved in the elemental creation of the space and management of its processes. We adopt an end-user programming approach with the use of templating as earlier proposed by Salako et al. [7]. More details about this templating approach are explained in Sect. 5.

3 Contributions

The main objective of this research project is to investigate how virtual environments (2D and 3D virtual environments—particularly virtual worlds) can be used to support distant collaboration for multi-users. Thus the study considers three major contributions as follows:

1. A computational framework (an end-user interaction and a computational architecture) that allows end-users to generate different multi-user 3D virtual collaborative innovation environments based on templating (meta-data and deployment rules). Also, the approach would work for brainstorming and group creativity tasks and the system architecture can also be extended to the generation of multi- user virtual 2D collaboration environments

2. Exploring how virtual world affordances can support brainstorming and group creativity tasks

3. Evaluation results comparing brainstorming and group creativity task effectiveness in virtual 2D environments and virtual worlds

4 A Framework for CSCW Systems

In order to characterize collaborative tasks, we have adopted a framework developed by Cugini et al. [8] for computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). Their research was built on the earlier work and framework was devised by Pinsonneault

(3)

and Kraemer [9] and McGrath [10]. The work of McGrath addressed the classification of tasks performed by groups and this was also incorporated in the framework by Cugini et al. We have also adopted this framework because it describes ways of assessing computer-supported cooperative work and particularly task types some of which we have utilized in this work.

The framework is described in four levels as shown in Fig. 1.

This framework includes the classification of group task types (referred to as work tasks) as described in Table 1.

In this research, we consider brainstorming and group creativity task (as performed in innovation-labs and an innovation methodology known as science fiction prototyping (SFP) [11]). An innovation-lab (i-Lab) has been defined as an “inspira- tional facility designed to transport its users from their everyday environment into an extraordinary space encouraging creative thinking and problem solving” [12].

Also, earlier researches [13–15] have pointed out that how such spaces are designed has significant impact on the productivity of users within the spaces. We have there- fore chosen i-Labs because we believe i-Labs can benefit from the numerous cus- tomizable features that virtual worlds could provide to support brainstorming and group creativity tasks.

As observed in the immersive learning research network conference attended in Coimbra Portugal and also has adopted in earlier SFP imagination workshops [16], a science fiction prototyping session involves a facilitator and participants. We further describe an SFP task below.

SFP Task Description

An example task description for SFP participants in an imagination workshop is listed below:

• Participants form groups of 3–5 people

• They elect a coordinator and scribe (to record ideas)

Work Tasks

Social Protocol

Transition Tasks

Group Characteristics

Requirement level

Capability level

Service level

Technology level Fig. 1 Framework for

collaborative systems developed by Cugini et al.

[8]

(4)

Table 1 Work type tasks by Cugini et al. [8]

Type Work task Description 1 Planning tasks

(McGrath)

In this type of task, group members are given a goal or previously chosen objective and are to develop a written plan to effect the steps in order to reach the goal. The plan should have alternative actions or paths

2 Brainstorming and group creativity

Members are given a particular topic area and are required to brainstorm on ideas

3 Intellective tasks A group is to solve a problem for which there is a recognized solution. This would include determining a concept given the instances of the concept. Also, groups could be asked to generate an instance of a concept and are given feedback whether it is the concept in question or not

4 Decision making tasks

Group members are asked to reach a consensus on issues with no correct answers

5 Cognitive conflict tasks

Here, members of the group have different viewpoints about an issue. The group is required to make a series of decisions from information available that is not well correlated with criterion and they have to arrive at a decision

6 Mixed motive tasks This represents a range of tasks differentiated by the extent to which a group member’s outcome is affected by a combination of his personal actions and the group’s outcome

6A Negotiation task Group is divided into a number of subgroups and a negotiator is elected for the subgroups. The different subgroups are not in agreement over an issue but an outcome has to be reached and trade-offs have to be made

6B Bargaining task This task is suitable for two individuals. In this type of task, a trade-off has to be made such that an individual’s gain results in the other individual’s loss

6C Winning coalition tasks

In this task type, subsets of members make agreements and the winning subset allocates the resources among group members.

The two research questions are the formation of the coalition and how resources are allocated

7 Competitive performances

Groups are competing against each other with no expectation of conflict resolution. Instead, each group’s goal is to win the other groups over. Subgroups compete with each other an equal number of times under the same pattern of situations

8 Non-competitive contests (against standards)

In this task, groups perform some complex tasks whose plan has already been decided upon. The groups just execute the plan 9 Dissemination of

information tasks (non-McGrath)

The task is aimed at distributing information to members of the group. The information can be spread by group members sharing information with each other or a superior sharing with the group.

There may be a question and answer session or not

(5)

• They choose an innovation focus, e.g. internet-of-things, smart environments (homes, business and cities), technological singularity, etc.

• List as many ideas as possible (not worrying about practicality of ideas)

• Create a short story (start big, then reduce it to about 25 words)

• Prior to starting the session, facilitators provide template to guide participants’

outputs writing stories, e.g.

• [Person] in [Situation] uses [Innovation] to do [Action] resulting in [Benefit]

Measurement Criteria to Assess the Productivity of Brainstorming

An earlier research by Isaksen [17] reviewed fifty earlier studies on brainstorming and group creativity and discussed some explicit measurement criteria to assess the productivity of brainstorming. Some of these are shown in Table 2.

They mention that the most pervasive criterion used has been the quantity of ideas generated and that studies often use quantity alone because of the high

Table 2 Evaluation

measures utilized Evaluation of

outcomes

Number of times used in the 50 studies

Quantity 32

Quality 15

Originality 10

Uniqueness 5

Enthusiasm 4

Fluency 4

Value 4

Satisfaction 3 Flexibility 3

Usefulness 2

Generality 2

Practicality 2 Interesting 1 Appropriate 1 Probability 1

Hitchhiked 1

Humorous 1

Novelty 1

Effectiveness 1 Orientation 1

Holistic 1

(6)

correlations between the quantity and quality of ideas. Also, research by Cugini et al. [8] points out that specific measures for a brainstorming and group creativity task as the number of ideas and originality of ideas.

5 The Research Approach (Templating)

As earlier mentioned in Sect. 1, there was a need to devise a way of assisting end- users (facilitators) to easily create and customize the virtual world for collaborative sessions. Also, the approach has to make it easy for the users who might not have virtual environment development and programming skills to create and customize the virtual environment. We propose the use of template interfaces which facilitators will be able to interact with exploring different deployment options. This template would contain meta-data and deployment rules about the collaborative session to be carried out (e.g. a brainstorming and creativity task as we consider in this project). In this work, the meta-data and deployment rules customized by facilitators for the virtual world are based on the following:

1. Tasks to be performed by users (1 to n tasks) 2. Tools needed for each task in (1)

3. Size of the space created for each task (to accommodate small/large groups) 4. Space ambience

5. Information inputs to assist users during the session (this can be implemented as information loaded in by facilitators or a plug-in system that smartly scrapes information relevant for the session from the internet and displays it to users as feeds to support their brainstorming)

6. Information input display behaviours 7. Outputs for the session

The meta-data and deployment rules will specify how the task would be deployed in the virtual environment (2D virtual environment/virtual worlds). This research focuses on deployment in a virtual world. Figure 2 shows an example template interface developed for this research.

As earlier mentioned in Sect. 1, the problem space and affordances for virtual environments are different to real worlds. The real world consists of rigid settings but virtual worlds can provide more customization functionalities that could benefit collaboration activities and particularly innovation-labs and its activities which this work explores. Some of the unique characteristics and affordances of virtual worlds are highlighted in the following section.

(7)

Fig. 2 Example of template interface

(8)

6 Distinguishing Characteristics/Affordances of Virtual Worlds

In this research, we aim to explore virtual world characteristics and affordances.

We next describe some characteristics as identified by previous research that may be beneficial to collaborative tasks and particularly brainstorming and group creativity tasks.

User Representation

This involves representing the user as an avatar. According to research by Dickey [18], this enables users to develop and project an online identity. Bendford et al. [19]

in their work illustrated the complexity of user representation in virtual worlds pro- posing a list of properties to be considered in user representation design. Schroeder and Axelson [20] in their research also point out depiction of users being an important element of representation fidelity because it helps to create a sense of co- presence which then enriches the social interactions occurring in the environment.

User Interactions

Embodied Actions Including Object Manipulation, View Control and Navigation

An important aspect that is peculiar to virtual worlds in relation to user interaction is the ability to perform embodied actions including object manipulation, view control and navigation in the environment. Dall’Alba and Barnacle [21] point out that traditional online environments (e.g. web-based) tend to be designed to facilitate disembodied ways of performing actions which is at odds with current epistemo- logical theories. Virtual worlds are said to possess the potential to address this issue with user representation (as described in section “User Representation”) and embodied action. Dickey [18] also stresses that embodiment is a vital element in the construction and portrayal of an online identity.

Embodied Verbal and Non-verbal Communication

Virtual worlds with multi-user capabilities provide the facility for users through avatars to engage in verbal and non-verbal communications. Salem et al. [22] explored efficiency in communication during dialogues in virtual worlds using non- verbal

(9)

channels such as body postures, facial expressions and hand gestures. Research by Yee et al. [23] aimed at establishing whether social behaviour and norms in virtual worlds are comparable to those in the real world. These include measurement of parameters like avatar eye gaze and interpersonal distance between male–male and male–female dyads.

Control Over the Attributes and Behaviour of the Environment

This includes, for instance, changing gravity parameters. Unlike the real world in which objects are affected by gravity, such parameters could be controlled or adjusted in the virtual world. We also explore this virtual world characteristic (see Table 3).

Table 3 Virtual world characteristics and how we have implemented this in our research Characteristic/affordances Implementation in virtual world

1 User representation • The use of male and female human-like avatars 2 User interactions

(a) Object manipulation Annotating boards • Selecting boards

• Selecting items on displayed menu • Editing/modifying fields on boards

• Selecting images on information displays to a shortlist board

(b) View control • 360° view of the space by avatars

(c) Navigation • Avatars can teleport between spaces or choose to move in three dimensions, i.e. X, Y and Z directions against gravity

(d) Embodied verbal and non- verbal communication

Verbal

• Voice communication Non-verbal

• Chat window for text messaging • Waving gesture by avatars (e) Control over the attributes and

behaviour of the environment

• Modification of gravity parameters enabling avatars to move against gravity and float in space (f) Control of objects and scripting

of object behaviours

• Control of space ambience (space layout colours)

• Control of information inputs into the space to support users’ brainstorming

• Control of information display behaviours (static, rotating and floating displays)

• Control of text outputs from the brainstorming session (as described in Sect. 4—SFP task description)

(10)

Control of Objects and Scripting of Object Behaviours

Some earlier researches [24–26] have explored this characteristic of virtual worlds by enabling users construct/control their own objects and scripting of object behaviours. We also explore this in our research. Virtual worlds can be used to facilitate similar experiences for brainstorming and group creativity tasks that would be impractical/impossible to undertake in the real physical world (details about how we have implemented this in our research is described in Table 3).

Stated below are how these characteristics and affordances of virtual worlds have been implemented in this research.

In addition to the implementations described in the table above, listed below are other capabilities implemented in the virtual world for this research.

• Shared Workspace (full access to all objects)—As the virtual world is mainly an information sharing space, avatars have full access to information displays and all objects in the workspace.

• Support for synchronous/asynchronous activities (with individuals and groups)—

Also, the virtual world supports asynchronous and synchronous group creativity and brainstorming for individuals and groups. Users can all log in at the same time to the shared workspace or log in at different times still having access to shared contents. The same resources remain accessible and persistent for both synchronous and asynchronous sessions (individuals and groups).

Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 show some snapshots of the template-driven virtual world that was implemented for this research.

Fig. 3 Snapshot showing tasks in a menu generated from the template

(11)

7 Hypotheses

The research hypotheses consist of the following statements which will be proven by means of experiments and evaluation.

First, it is possible to devise a computational framework (with end-user interaction and a computational architecture) that would allow end-users to generate different multi-user virtual 3D collaboration environments based on templating (meta-data

Fig. 4 Snapshot showing a user interacting with a tool (whiteboard) as specified in a section created by the template

Fig. 5 Snapshot showing a user interacting with a tool (notepad) as specified in a section created by the template

(12)

and deployment rules), thereby exploring virtual world affordances. This framework would support distant collaboration allowing its users to perform collaborative tasks (brainstorming and group creativity tasks).

Second, deployment in a virtual world will give participants better sense of presence, engagement and immersion for a brainstorming and group creativity task compared with deployment in a 2D environment.

Third, deployment in a virtual world will result in greater quantity and quality of ideas generated compared with performing the task in a 2D environment.

We go further to state the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, dependent and independent variables for this research.

Null Hypothesis

• The target or deployment environment (2D and virtual 3D environment) has no effect on participants’ sense of presence, engagement and immersion for a brainstorming and group creativity task

• The target or deployment environment (2D and virtual 3D environment) has no effect on the quantity and quality of ideas generated

Alternative Hypothesis

• Deployment in a virtual 3D environment (our developed virtual world) gives participants a better sense of presence, engagement and immersion than deployment in a virtual 2D environment (Skype software used together with Google docs)

Fig. 6 Snapshot showing a user interacting with images related to smartphones as specified in and created by the template

(13)

• Groups performing brainstorming and group creativity task in a virtual 3D environment (our developed virtual world) will have greater quantity and quality of ideas generated than those performing the task in a 2D environment

Independent Variable

• The deployment environment (2D environment and virtual 3D environment)

Dependent Variables

1. Participants’ sense of presence, engagement and immersion 2. Quantity and quality of ideas generated

8 Experimental Framework

Experiments will be carried out in two phases. More details about how this will be done are explained below.

Phase One of Experiments

In Phase One, the first hypothesis would be validated as stated in Sect. 6, which is to ascertain whether end-users would be able to use the proposed templating approach (meta-data and deployment rules) for creating tasks and tools needed for the tasks, specifying size of the space/sections to be created, customizing the space ambience, information inputs to assist users during the session, information display behaviours and outputs for the session to generate virtual worlds to be used for collaborative tasks. The first hypothesis is translated to the following premises:

1. The templating approach (meta-data and deployment rules) should be able to be used by end-users (facilitators) to customize the virtual world for a collaboration session

2. It would be easy for end-users (facilitators) to customize the environment using the templating approach (meta-data and deployment rules)

Participants’ tasks would include interacting with the template interface, customizing meta-data to reflect deployment rules and then deploying the template to

(14)

create the virtual world. In this way, we would be able to show that the templating approach can be used to enable users to create and customize virtual worlds for their collaborative sessions.

In assessing how easy the templating approach is for customizing and generating the virtual world, a questionnaire would be developed to measure participants’ atti- tude over six usability dimensions which are:

• Conceptual—to see how well the participant understood the templating concept (meta-data and deployment rules)

• Control—to see how user-friendly the participant found the templating interface

• Cognitive load—to see how difficult (mental strain) the participant found the templating approach

• Information presentation—to see how useful and meaningful the participant found the information provided in the templating approach.

• Affective experience—to seek feedback on participants’ experiences of using the template

• Future thoughts—to explore participants’ views as to whether they thought the templating approach would be useful in future for creating virtual worlds for collaboration tasks

Phase Two of Experiments

In phase two, before the experiment is carried out, participants would be introduced to the concept of SFP and the task descriptions for the SFP task (as earlier stated in Sect. 4) in order to know what is expected of them in the session.

Participants will also be put through how to use the virtual 2D environment (Skype together with Google docs) and our developed virtual world to achieve the aims for the experiment.

Measurement of the Quantity of Ideas Generated

Participants in both environments (virtual 2D and virtual 3D) would be timed equally (e.g. 30 min) for the SFP sessions to generate ideas. The number of ideas generated within this timeframe would then be used to calculate the rate of generation of ideas in the different environments.

Measurement of Presence, Immersion and Engagement

The presence questionnaire designed by Witner and Singer [27] which contains 32 items using a seven-point scale would be adopted for use in our work. To compare immersion levels, the IQ questionnaire constructed by Jennett et al. [28] would be

(15)

adopted and applied. The engagement measurement will be based on the GEQ developed by Brockmyer et al. [29] consisting of 19 items using a five-point scale to measure participants’ levels of engagement after they complete the collaborative tasks in different environments.

9 Conclusion and Future Directions

In this paper, we have introduced a responsive templating approach that allows reconfiguration options for online immersive collaborative innovation spaces. This approach allows users (facilitators) to interface with templates that possess dynamic and extensible fields which also serve as input specifications for machine processes that adapt to the templates to create virtual innovation-labs suited for specific innovation sessions. Also, we have highlighted some virtual world characteristics and affordances and aim to explore how these can be used to achieve more effective collaboration for users performing innovation activities. We have initially implemented the responsive templates for users (facilitators) to be able to specify structured tasks, tools, space size, inputs and outputs for the session, display behaviours and space ambience. The vision is to make the templates more flexible/extensible to allow users (facilitators and participants) to be able to adapt it to suit their needs for different sessions.

We recognize that more details are needed as to how the project would be evalu- ated with respect to the two evaluation phases stated in this write up. In that respect, by way of future work, we aim to provide more details about the evaluation framework, test the system with users and report our experimental findings.

Acknowledgements We are pleased to acknowledge the UK government for the provision of a PhD scholarship to the lead author who is a Commonwealth Scholar. We also wish to express our appreciation to Dr. Marc Davies and the Creative Science Foundation for making their resources available to this project. In addition we wish to thank Dr. Anasol Pena-Rios for her generosity in supplying the BReal platform code which we have used as the basis of the server technology.

References

1. N. Joshi, in Learning design and structured tasks in 3D virtual world. IMpact of E-Technology on US (IMPETUS), 2014 International Conference (IEEE, 2014)

2. J. Kemp, D. Livingstone, in Putting a Second Life “metaverse” skin on learning management systems. Proceedings of the Second Life Education Workshop at the Second Life Community Convention (The University of Paisley CA, San Francisco, 2006)

3. S. Azhar, M. Khalfan, T. Maqsood, Building information modelling (BIM): now and beyond.

Constr. Econ. Build. 12(4), 15–28 (2015)

(16)

4. G. Fischer, End user development and meta-design: foundations for cultures of participa- tion, in End-User Computing, Development, and Software Engineering: New Challenges (IGI Global, Hershey, 2012), pp. 202–226

5. B. Koehne, D. Redmiles, G. Fischer, Extending the meta-design theory: engaging participants as active contributors in virtual worlds, in International Symposium on End User Development (Springer, Copenhagen, 2011)

6. V. Caruso, M.D. Hartley, A.I. Mørch, End-user development in second life: meta-design, tai- loring, and appropriation, in End-User Development (Springer, Cham, 2015), pp. 92–108.

7. O. Salako, M. Gardner, V. Callaghan, Towards online immersive collaborative innovation spaces, in International Conference on Immersive Learning (Springer, Missoula, 2017) 8. J. Cugini et al., in Methodology for evaluation of collaboration systems. The evaluation

working group of the DARPA intelligent collaboration and visualization program. Rev, 1997.

p. 3

9. A. Pinsonneault, K.L. Kraemer, The impact of technological support on groups: an assessment of the empirical research. Decis. Support. Syst. 5(2), 197–216 (1989)

10. J.E. McGrath, Groups: Interaction and Performance, vol 14 (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1984)

11. V. Callaghan, M. Davies, S. Zhang, An Online Immersive Reality Innovation-Lab, iLRN, 2016

12. I. Susnea et al., in The education for creativity–the only student’s tool for coping with the uncertainties of the future. MAC ETEL 2014–International Conference on Education, Teaching and e-Learning, Prague, Oct, 2014

13. J. Moultrie et al., Innovation spaces: towards a framework for understanding the role of the physical environment in innovation. Creat. Innov. Manag. 16(1), 53–65 (2007)

14. A. Whiteside, S. Fitzgerald, Designing learning spaces for active learning. Implications 7, 1–6 (2009)

15. M. Lewis, J. Moultrie, The organizational innovation laboratory. Creat. Innov. Manag. 14(1), 73–83 (2005)

16. H.-Y. Wu, Imagination workshops: an empirical exploration of SFP for technology-based business innovation. Futures 50, 44–55 (2013)

17. S.G. Isaksen, A Review of Brainstorming Research: Six Critical Issues for Inquiry (Creative Problem Solving Group, Buffalo, 1998)

18. M.D. Dickey, in Constructing the user: the impact of the design of three-dimensional virtual worlds on user representation, 2009. Retrieved 9 Apr 2002

19. S. Benford et al., User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM Press/Addison- Wesley Publishing Co, New York, 1995).

20. R. Schroeder, A.-S. Axelsson, Avatars at Work and Play: Collaboration and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments, vol 34 (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2006)

21. G. Dall’Alba, R. Barnacle, Embodied knowing in online environments. Educ. Philos. Theory 37(5), 719–744 (2005)

22. B. Salem, N. Earle, in Designing a non-verbal language for expressive avatars. Procee- dings of the Third International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments (ACM, 2000)

23. N. Yee et al., The unbearable likeness of being digital: the persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 10(1), 115–121 (2007)

24. D.M. Antonacci, N. Modaress, Envisioning the educational possibilities of user-created virtual worlds. AACE J. 16(2), 115–126 (2008)

25. M.N.K. Boulos, L. Hetherington, S. Wheeler, Second life: an overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Inf. Libr. J. 24(4), 233–245 (2007)

(17)

26. J.G. Hedberg, O.C. Brudvik, Supporting dialogic literacy through mashing and modding of places and spaces. Theory Pract. 47(2), 138–149 (2008)

27. B.G. Witmer, M.J. Singer, Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3), 225–240 (1998)

28. C. Jennett et al., Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int. J. Hum.

Comput. Stud. 66(9), 641–661 (2008)

29. J.H. Brockmyer et al., The development of the game engagement questionnaire: a measure of engagement in video game-playing. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45(4), 624–634 (2009)