# Social Responses to Virtual Humans: The Effect of Human-Like Characteristics
## 2 Experiment #1: Social Facilitation
### Results
#### 2.5.2 Post Hoc Analyses for Each Virtual Human Type  
_Voice synced facial appearance versus human:_ Of interest was whether the social response to a virtual human with voice synced facial appearance is similar to social response to a human. For all three tasks, pairwise comparisons show that completion time for both easy and hard tasks did not significantly differ from the human condition _with the exception of the maze hard task_; anagram easy: \(t(34)<1\); anagram hard: \(t(34)<1\); maze easy: \(t(34)<1\); maze hard: \(t(34)=4.17\), \(p<0.01\), \(d=0.57\); modular arithmetic easy: \(t(34)<1\); modular arithmetic hard: \(t(34)<1\) (see Table 2). We acknowledge that these are primarily null results, therefore we conducted a post hoc power analysis with the program G*Power [86] with power set at 0.8 and \(\alpha=0.05\), \(d=0.5\), two-tailed. The results suggest an n of approximately 384 would be needed to achieve appropriate statistical power; the limitation of these findings will be discussed. _Facial appearance versus human:_ Of interest was whether the social response to a face only virtual human is similar to the social response to a human. For all three tasks, pairwise comparisons show that completion time for both easy and hard tasks was statistically different from the human condition _with the exception of the modular easy task and the hard task_; \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**The Type of Virtual Human** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Anagram** \\ **Easy** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Anagram** \\ **Hard** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Maze** \\ **Easy** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Maze** \\ **Hard** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Modular** \\ **Arithmetic Easy** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Modular** \\ **Arithmetic Hard** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Facial appearance only & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.01\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) \\ \hline Voice recordings only & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.01\) \\ \hline Voice synced facial appearance & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) & \(p<0.01\) & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) \\ \hline Facial appearance conveying emotion & \(t<1\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(t<1\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline Voice recordings conveying emotion & \(t<1\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(p<0.05\) & \(t<1\) & \(p<0.05\) \\ \hline Voice synced facial appearance conveying emotion & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) & \(t<1\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Post hoc analyses for each virtual human type. anagram easy: \(t(34)=2.5\), \(p<0.05\), \(d=0.1\); anagram hard: \(t(34)=3.0\), \(p<0.01\), \(d=-0.26\); maze easy: \(t(34)=2.47\), \(p<0.05\), \(d=2.23\); maze hard: \(t(34)=2.0\), \(p<0.05\), \(d=-0.19\); modular arithmetic easy: \(t(34)<1\); modular arithmetic hard: \(t(34)<1\). _Voice recordings versus human:_ Of interest was whether the social response to a voice only virtual human is similar to the social response to a human. For all three tasks, comparisons show that completion time for both easy and hard tasks was statistically different from the human condition _with the exception of the maze easy task_; anagram easy: \(t(34)=3.25\), \(p<0.05\), \(d=0.41\); anagram hard: \(t(34)=2.25\), \(p<0.05\). \(d=-0.56\); maze easy: \(t(34)=1.17\), \(p>0.05\), \(d=0.65\); maze hard: \(t(34)=2.50\), \(p<0.05\), \(d=-0.17\); modular arithmetic easy: \(t(34)=2.13\), \(p<0.05\), \(d=-0.003\); modular arithmetic hard: \(t(34)=3.00\), \(p<0.01\), \(d=-0.66\). _Facial appearance conveying emotion versus human:_ Of interest was whether the social response to a facial appearance conveying emotion is similar to the social response to a human.