Voices, Boxes, and Sources of Messages.

Abstract

Can adults be induced to use social rules distinguishing "seJf' and "other" to respnd to the behrmiors of technologies? In a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects laboratory experiment involving the use of multiple computers with voice output, 88 computer-literate college students used a computerfor tutoring and a different computerfor testing. The performance ofthe tutoring session was either praised or m'ticized (Manipulation I) in the same voice as the tutoring session or a distinct voice (Manipulation 2) via the computer (box) that performed the tutoring or a distinct computer (box;Manipulation 3). Respondents were shown to use voices but not boxes to distinguish "self%om "other" behavior in applying thesocial rules "Poformance evaluationsfrom othersare moreaccumte than are petfmance evaluations of sey," "Praisefrom others isfnendlier than pmisefrm seg" and "Criticismfrom seyisfiendlier than is m'ticismfrom others," to mluate the tutoring and evaluation session.ne of the basic premises of communication research is that the receiver's perception of a source and the receiver's 0 response to the source's message are mutually causal. In one direction, the perceived motives, intentions, attitudes, and knowledge of a sender influence the perceived meaning of and responses to a

Experience as a moderator of the media equation: the impact of flattery and praise

“…The 'computer as a proxy' argument is based on the notion that when an individual responds socially to a computer they are, in fact, responding to the machine as a human artefact. That is, the machine is merely a medium that embodies the responses of the producer or programmer (Nass and Steuer, 1993;Nass, Steuer et al, 1994a;Nass, Steuer et al, 1994b;Nass, Fogg and Moon, 1996;Nass and Moon, 2000;Sundar and Nass, 2000). Inherent in both the anthropomorphism and computer as proxy explanations is that individuals' social responses to technology are consistent with their beliefs about the technology: the computer is treated like a person because it either is perceived to be or perceived to represent a human being.…”

The moderating role of prior experience in technological acceptance models for ubiquitous computing services in urban environments

“…These results, in accordance with Johnson et al's findings [72], suggest that people do indeed have different social perceptions of computing technology and that there is a large variation in perceptions along the continuum, with few people found at either extreme. Moreover, the broad scope of research into this construct has shown that socialness within an interface can be readily perceived, whether the technology is a simple text-based interface or a technologically rich set of components including pictorial representation, natural language processing and other artificial intelligence capabilities [45,74].…”

“…Perceptions of socialness occur when an individual interacting with a computer senses cues that suggest that the computer is responding to his or her actions in a distinctly social manner. The broad scope of research into this construct has shown that socialness within an interface can be readily perceived, whether the technology is a simple text-based interface or a technologically rich set of components including pictorial representation, natural language processing and other artificial intelligence capabilities [45,72,74]. It has been previously used to study consumers' shopping experiences with online providers [75,76] or face-to-face market transactions [77].…”

“…Further, Reeves and Nass [44] suggest that 'all people automatically and unconsciously respond socially to media even though they believe that it is not reasonable to do so'. People have been found to use social rules and respond differentially to computers with different voices [45], to invoke common gender stereotypes [46], to feel psychologically close or connected with a computer [47], to respond to computer personalities in a similar manner as they respond to human personalities [48], and even to respond to flattery [49]. In accordance with Nass et al [50], when a computer was identified as a team-mate, participants perceived the computer to be friendlier and more like them, cooperated more and perceived information from the computer to be of higher quality.…”

Patterns of trust in ubiquitous environments

“…This is based on the acceptance of the trustee by the trustor and on the "personification" of the trustee within such an environment [17,18].…”