Book Reading #48: Media Equation

Part 1: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Reference Information
Title: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Authors: Clifford Nass, Youngme Moon
Published: Journal of Social Issues, 2000


Summary
This paper discussed how people tend to have social responses, such as politeness, towards computers. This paper suggests that it is not due to ignorance of thinking that computers have human attributes, but due to mindless behavior that results in subconscious social reactions due to similarities in the situation. Experiments were conducted to show this that tested attributing social categories (such as gender roles, ethnicity traits, ingroup vs. outgroup, politeness, reciprocity, and self-disclosure), premature cognitive commitment (labeling of specialist vs. generalist), and personality. The paper also denounced alternative explanations, such as ignorance, anthropomorphism, or orientation to the programmer.


Discussion
I am aware of the fact that people tend to treat computers like humans in many aspects, but I found this paper to be very interesting in that it debunked the theories of anthropomorphism and such. I thought the extent and amount of different experiments that were carried out was very thorough, and I found it interesting that in every experiment, humans followed psychology principles towards computers.


Part 2: Computers are Social Actors
Reference Information
Title: Computers are Social Actors
Authors: Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, Ellen Tauber
When/Where: CHI 1994


Summary
This paper discussed human-computer interaction and presented experimental evidence that people's interactions with computers follow psychological social rules that apply to human-human interactions, and are not the result of ignorance or social dysfunctions. The method of reproducing these social interactions was discussed, then applied to various situations, including politeness, self vs. other, gender roles, and the computer vs. programmer vs. "I" context. Every one of these social norms was proven.


Discussion
This paper seemed to repeat much of the discussion in the first paper, but I liked the more in-depth discussion about the experiments. I found it particularly interesting that there was no difference in human reactions between the computer using "computer" tense and "I" tense. Finally, I liked that this paper presented what the implications of this were for computer science, specifically that this means that programs do not need expensive AI and GUIs to elicit social responses.


Part 3: Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?
Reference Information
Title: Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?
Authors: Clifford Nass, Youngme Moon, BJ Fogg, Byron Reeves, Chris Dryer
When/Where: CHI 1995


Summary
This paper presents a study to find the minimum set of clues needed to create a computer-based personality and to show that this can elicit social responses from users. Dominance/submission aspects of personality were tested  by assigning particular attributes to computers. The results confirmed all of the hypotheses that were based on psychological theory.


Discussion
I liked that this paper discussed just one study in-depth that had been discussed in both of the previous papers. It was interesting to read about the hypotheses, but other than that, this paper just seemed pretty repetitive after reading the previous papers. The conclusion was pretty interesting though, that minimal attempts are necessary to effect humans and that humans respond socially to technology.