Human beings are proficient users of tools and technology. At times, our interactions with a technological artifact appear so effortless, that the distinction between the artifact and the body starts to fade. When operating anthropomorphically designed teleoperation systems, for example, some people develop the vivid experience that they are physically there at the remote site (i.e., telepresence). Others might even come to sense the slave robot’s arms and hands as their own. The process in which the central nervous system categorizes an object as a part of the body, and in which a discrimination is made between what is contained within and outside the bodily boundaries, is called self-attribution. The aim of this thesis is twofold: (a) To determine the personal factors (e.g., the characteristics of an individual’s psychological makeup) and situational factors (e.g., the appearance of objects) that constrain or facilitate self-attribution, and (b) to determine the degree to which these factors affect people’s experiences with media technology. In Chapter 2, we describe the theoretical framework of our research which is centered on a conception of the user of technology as an embodied agent. In this chapter we distinguish two important, but often confused aspects of embodiment: the body schema, and the body image. The body schema is defined as a dynamic distributed network of procedures aimed at guiding behavior. In contrast, we defined the body image as a part of the process of consciousness and, thus, as consisting of those higher-order discriminations (or qualia) that pertain to the body, and one’s self-perception thereof. To investigate the individual and situational factors that constrain or facilitate selfattribution (i.e., incorporation into the body image), we employ the experimental paradigm of the rubber-hand illusion (Botvinick & Cohen, 1998). In this illusion, which is induced by stroking a person’s concealed hand together with a visible fake one, some people start to sense the fake hand as an actual part of their body. In Chapter 3, we investigate the rubberhand illusion under two mediated conditions: (1) a virtual reality condition, where both the fake hand and its stimulation were projected on the table in front of the participant, and (2) a mixed reality condition, where the fake hand was projected, but its stimulation was unmediated. Our experiment reveals that people can develop the rubber-hand illusion under mediated conditions, but the resulting illusion may, depending on the technology used, be less vivid than in the traditional unmediated setup. In Chapter 4, we investigate the extent to which visual discrepancies between the foreign object and a human hand affect people in developing a vivid rubber-hand illusion. We found that people experience a more vivid illusion when the foreign object resembles the human hand in terms of both shape and texture. Taken together, the experiments in Chapters 3 and 4 support the view that the rubber-hand illusion is not merely governed by a bottom-up process (i.e., based on visuotactile integration), but is affected, top-down, by a cognitive representation of what the human body is like (e.g., Tsakiris and Haggard, 2005). In the rubber-hand illusion, people commonly misperceive the location of their concealed hand toward the direction of the fake hand (Tsakiris & Haggard, 2005). As such, this so-called proprioceptive drift is often used as an alternative to self-reports in assessing the vividness of the illusion (e.g., Tsakiris & Haggard, 2005). In Chapter 5, we investigate the extent to which the observed shift in felt position of the concealed hand can be attributed to experiencing the illusion. For this purpose, we test how various features of the experimental setup of the rubber-hand illusion, which in themselves are not sufficient to elicit the illusion, affect proprioceptive drift. We corroborate existing research which demonstrates that looking at a fake hand or a tabletop for five minutes, in absence of visuotactile stimulation, is sufficient to induce a change in the felt position of an unseen hand (e.g., Gross et al., 1974). Moreover, our experiments indicate that the use of proprioceptive drift as a measure for the strength of the rubber-hand illusion yields different conclusions than an assessment by means of self-reports. Based on these results, we question the validity of proprioceptive drift as an alternative measure of the vividness of the rubber-hand illusion. In Chapter 6, we propose and test a model of the vividness of the rubber-hand illusion. In two experiments, we successfully modeled people’s self-reported experiences related to the illusion (e.g., "the fake hand felt as my own") based on three estimates: (a) a person’s susceptibility for the rubber-hand illusion, (b) the processing demand that is required for a particular experience, and (c) the suppression/constraints imposed by the situation. We demonstrate that the impressions related to the rubber-hand illusion, and by inference the processes behind them, are comparable for different persons. This is a non-trivial finding as such invariance is required for an objective scaling of individual susceptibility and situational impediment on the basis of self-reported experiences. Regarding the validity of our vividness model, we confirm that asynchrony (e.g., Botvinick & Cohen, 1998) and information-poor stimulation (e.g., Armel & Ramachandran, 2003) constrain the development of a vivid rubber-hand illusion. Moreover, we demonstrate that the correlation between a person’s susceptibility for the rubber-hand illusion and the extent of his of her proprioceptive drift is fairly moderate, thereby confirming our conclusions from Chapter 5 regarding the limited validity of proprioceptive drift as a measure of the vividness of the rubber-hand illusion. In Chapter 7, we investigate the extent to which the large individual differences in people’s susceptibility for the illusion can be explained by body image instability, and the ability to engage in motor imagery of the hand (i.e., in mental own hand transformations). In addition, we investigate whether the vividness of the illusion is dependent on the anatomical implausibility of the fake hand’s orientation. With respect to body image instability, we corroborate a small, but significant, correlation between susceptibility and body image aberration scores: As expected, people with a more unstable body image are also more susceptible to the rubber-hand illusion (cf. Burrack & Brugger, 2005). With respect to the position and orientation of the fake hand on the table, we demonstrate that people experience a less vivid rubber-hand illusion when the fake hand is orientated in an anatomically impossible, as compared to an anatomically possible manner. This finding suggests that the attribution of foreign objects to the self is constrained by the morphological capabilities of the human body. With respect to motor imagery, our results indicate a small, but significant, correlation between susceptibility and response times to a speeded left and right hands identification task. In other words, people who are more attuned to engage in mental own hand transformations are also better equipped to develop vivid rubber-hand illusions. In Chapter 8, we examine the role of self-attribution in the experience of telepresence. For this purpose, we introduce the technological domain of mediated social touch (i.e., interpersonal touching over a distance). We anticipated that, compared to a morphologically incongruent input medium, a morphologically congruent medium would be more easily attributed to the self. As a result, we expected our participants to develop a stronger sense of telepresence when they could see their interaction partner performing the touches on a sensor-equipped mannequin as opposed to a touch screen. Our participants, as expected, reported higher levels of telepresence, and demonstrated more physiological arousal with the mannequin input medium. At the same time, our experiment revealed that these effects might not have resulted from self-attribution, and thus that other psychological mechanisms of identification might play a role in telepresence experiences. In Chapter 9, the epilogue, we discuss the main contributions and limitations of this thesis, while taking a broader perspective on the field of research on media technologies and corporeal awareness.