Social Aspects of Design

1. ITM 734 Fall 2005 Social Aspects of Design Dr. Cindy Corritore Creighton University

2. Nass and Reeves • What did they do?

3. Nass and Reeves • They recreated psychology experiments between 2 people with a person and a computer. • used methodologies of how people responded to people to test how people respond to media • idea – confusion between mediated life and real life • common, easy to foster, doesn’t take advanced technology, thinking does not make it go away • established the psychological equivalence of real and mediated worlds

4. Nass and Reeves • What did they find? (main findings)

5. Nass and Reeves • individuals’ interactions with computers, tv, new media are fundamentally social and natural • just like interactions in real world • expect media to obey social norms/rules • media (espc computers) close enough to human to activate social/natural responses/scripts • social actor • do this even if believe it is not reasonable to do so • not aware we’re are doing it • true of all folks – not just novices

6. other findings • can turn this off, but takes a lot of effort • people not evolved to 21st century technology • built for a world in which humans are only social actors and all perceived objects were physical • people expect reciprocity – if they are being polite, they expect to be treated politely

7. specific examples • people are polite to others asking questions about themselves • politeness is ubiquitous • positive and homogeneous • mix if asked by third party • motion demands attention • react the same if motion is on a screen

8. polite experiments • people unconsciously polite and expect reciprocity • Grice’s polite conversation principles • quality – say things that are true and appropriate • quantity – avoid verbosity and excessive brevity (eg. icon, one word menu item) • relevance – info should relate to the purpose of the discussion – involves knowing ‘what are the users goals?’ • clarity – avoid ambiguity • people assume violations have social significance

9. personal space • Seinfeldt – close talker – everyone knows about this • close is arousing – gets attention • found closer pictures more arousing (distance from screen, size of display, closeup pictures) • attention, intensity, remembering • pictures of people – perceived as actually there

10. flattery • flattery will get you everywhere • we like it – even if insincere – self-serving bias • if positive, don’t question sincerity • think more highly of the flatterer and believe it • if negative, look for ways to dismiss or ignore • ignore unwarranted more than warranted

11. judging others • people draw inferences depending on the source of an evaluation • hear criticism – think critic is mean, criticism is true (target doing poor work) • think critic is smart • hear praise – critic is nice, target is doing good work • self-praise – suspicious and less valid and less competent than if from another source • don’t like self-praisers • like self-critiquers

12. personalities • five dimensions • dominance/submissiveness • friendliness • conscientiousness • emotional stability • openness • people attribute this to even stick drawings • then used to guide interaction • make them strong so can place them • guides expectations

13. personalities • everything feeds in to establishment of a personality • like dominant and friendly in media • people like to interact with personalities like their own • people like personalities that change over time to become more like theirs • executive assistants

14. giving computerspersonality • doesn’t have to be sophisticated • type of text used (language style) • level of confidence in statements • dominant talks first • found people recognized these personalities in computers and identified with their likeness • when matched, thought computer and own work better

15. implications • way to improve design – have media conform to social rules • humans experts at this (social and physical world) • evaluating media – how media affects us • new research methods • subjects can’t tell you what they think • challenge standing beliefs • media as tools like a hammer • perception is key – not whether something is truly intelligent or not • media evoke thoughts of who is behind the item – not true • websites – can we trust?

16. other studies • online trust – what is the object of trust? • online trust – how might trust be fostered in an interface? • negative evaluations from their face or another • if their face • believed the computer comments more • thought comments more fair • recalled comments more positively (react less negatively) – less negative bias