Reference Information
Part 1
Title: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Authors: Clifford Nass, Youngme Moon
Presentation Venue: Journal of Social Issues; Volume 56, Issue 1, Spring 2000, pp. 81-103.
Part 2
Title: Computers are social actors
Authors: Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, Ellen R. Tauber
Presentation Venue: CHI ’95: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence; April 24, 1995; Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Part 3
Title: Can computer personalities be human personalities?
Authors: Clifford Nass, Youngme Moon, B. J. Fogg, Byron Reeves, Chris Dryer
Presentation Venue: CHI ’95: Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems; 1995; Denver, Colorado, USA.
Part 1
Summary
This paper discusses how people tend to apply social rules to computers and have certain expectations of their computers. In one set of experiments they show how users tend to apply social categories to computers. In this experiment they had users be tutored, tested and evaluated with a computer with either a male or female voice output. Results show that people found the male voice friendlier. They also examined ethnicity through interactive video manipulation.
In another set of experiments they show how people tend to act polite towards their computers. They had a computer ask about its own performance. Then the researchers had a different computer ask about the first computer’s performance. Then the researchers asked the same questions through a questionnaire. Responses about the computer were found to be more positive when it was the one doing the questions rather than when a second computer asked the questions or a questionnaire provided the questions. They also tested reciprocity – working harder to help a computer that has helped you in the past – and reciprocal self-disclosure – having the computer tell a bit about itself, asking a personal question and then getting an intimate response.
In a third set of experiments they show how people value information provided by a computer when it is identified as a “specialist” rather than when it is identified as a “generalist.” They used televisions with news shows and entertainment shows. All of these experiments help to show how people react mindlessly to computers by applying social interactions between people to how they interact with their computers.
They then explore alternative explanations for their findings. They discuss anthropomorphism, the act of believing something is essentially human. They also discuss how some believe people aren’t reacting to the computer but to the programmer. They then discuss the methods of their experiments.
Discussion
I really enjoyed reading about the reciprocal self-disclosure experiment. It was hilarious to read, “This computer has been configured to run at speeds up to 266 MHz. But 90% of computer users don’t use applications that require these speeds. So this computer rarely gets used to its full potential. What has been your biggest disappointment in life?” Since people were found to give more intimate answers to a computer that did this, I wonder if anyone has a done a study on the physiological benefits of computers. I really enjoyed reading about these studies and how mindless we really can be when it comes to interacting with computers.
Part 2
Summary
The second paper further explores the ideas in the first and sites that the reason that people act the way they do with computers has to do with how commonplace and easy it is to generate such responses. The paper describes five experiments in which they test whether a person will be polite to the computer, whether a person will apply the notion of ‘self’ and ‘other’ to the computer, how a person distinguishes between ‘self’ and ‘other,’ whether or not they will apply gender stereotypes to computers and why people act the way they do with computers. The findings were similar to the findings described in the first paper in part 1 of this book reading assignment. Something to note from the fifth study was that they found that users did not see the computer as a medium for social interaction with the programmer.
The researchers conclude by saying that the computer-human relationship is a social one. They also note that effort to make interfaces with realistic faces and personalities may not be needed since even the basic computer encourages a fundamentally social relationship with the user.
Discussion
This was a good paper to read after the one in part 1. It further explored the studies in part 1 and strengthened their findings. I also agree with the conclusions they drew. It is simple to interact with a computer the way we do with people. However, there are still major differences between the interactions. While people might be more polite to a computer’s “face” than when they are away from the computer, I cannot see people becoming attached to their computers or developing relationships that when lost would cause major distress. The computer is still a tool. It’s just easy and feels natural to interact with it in a more human way, at least in some instances.
Part 3
Summary
This paper explores the idea of creating a personality for a computer, the minimum set of cues needed to make the personality and how powerful the effects of the personality are on the user. They focus on making a computer seem dominant and then submissive, assuring that the personality trait is noted and seeing how the trait makes the user react. They also test to see how much a user prefers the computer based on how similar they are when it comes to the trait of dominance/submissiveness.
The main difference between the personality traits shown in the computers was the style of communication. The dominant computer used strong language and displayed a high confidence level. The submissive computer made suggestions, asked questions and showed a low confidence level. Their findings show that people did perceive the dominant computer as more dominant than the submissive computer and that people preferred to work with a computer that was similar to them in terms of dominance and submissiveness. When the personalities were similar between computer and user, the user reported the interaction as being more satisfying.
The researchers conclude by saying that it is easier than expected to manipulate a personality even in its simplest form and that these findings also imply that humans respond socially to computers.
Discussion
Before reading this paper, I hadn’t given much thought about a computer’s perceived personality and the impact it could have on the user. It was neat to read about how even a simple trait like dominance and submission could have such a profound impact on the user. As the researchers note, these findings also back the findings described in the other two papers about how people respond socially to a computer.
No comments:
Post a Comment