Media Equation Presentation Draft (1)

transcript

The Media Equation By

Byron Reeves & Clifford Nass

Presenter, Wen Geng & Zaki Haider

“… individuals’ interactions with computers, television, and new media are fundamentally social and natural” (Reeves & Nass, 1996, P. 5)

• Reeves,B.,&Nass,C.(1996).Howpeopletreatcomputers,television,andnewmedialikerealpeopleandplaces(p.5).CSLIPublicationsandCambridgeuniversitypress.• Cartoons.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember23,2015,fromhttp://drawnbytom.com/cartoons

2:08PM

• Lumière,A.,&Lumière,L.(Directors).(1896).L'arrivéed'untrainàLaCiotat[Motionpicture].France:.LumièreBrothers.Asdisplayedin,• Scorsese,M.(Director).(2011).Hugo[Motionpicture].U.S.A.:GKFilms.Retrievedfrom:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL_RR1iDA2k

Guess, what happened

when the first motion picture was shown in

a Carnival in 1896 by the Lumière

Brothers?

2:08PM

• Reeves,B.,&Nass,C.(1996).Howpeopletreatcomputers,television,andnewmedialikerealpeopleandplaces.CSLIPublicationsandCambridgeuniversitypress.• Cartoons.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember23,2015,fromhttp://drawnbytom.com/cartoons

Who believes… Media = Real Life

Children Do not have the knowledge

Novices Do not have the experience

Experts think it is easier and efficient to accept the metaphor

2:08PM

• Nass,C.,Steuer,J.,Tauber,E.,&Reeder,H.(1993,April).Anthropomorphism,agency,andethopoeia:computersassocialactors.InINTERACT'93andCHI'93conferencecompaniononHumanfactorsincomputingsystems(pp.111-112).ACM.

• Reeves,B.,&Nass,C.(1996).Howpeopletreatcomputers,television,andnewmedialikerealpeopleandplaces.(pp.12)CSLIPublicationsandCambridgeuniversitypress.• Cartoons.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember23,2015,fromhttp://radiofreethinker.com

Reeves & Nass proposes,

Everyone believes

Media = Real Life “The human brain evolved in a world in which only humans exhibited rich social behaviors, and a world in which all received objects were real physical objects.

Anything that seemed to be real person or place was real.” (Reeves & Nass, 1996, P. 12)

Computer (and Media) act as social actors. (Nass et al. 1993)

2:08PM

• Reeves,B.,&Nass,C.(1996).Howpeopletreatcomputers,television,andnewmedialikerealpeopleandplaces(p.11).CSLIPublicationsandCambridgeuniversitypress.

Step 1. Find a well supported social science research about peoples’ interaction with other people Ex. People would react to other people politely

Step 2. Summarize the rule Ex. People are polite to those who ask questions about themselves.

Step 3. Replace person with media Ex. People are polite to computers that ask questions about themselves.

Step 4. Find how the social science theory was tested Ex. When someone asks your opinion about themselves you reply favorably; contrary to when someone else asks you to evaluate the same person

Step 5. Recreate the experiment with media Ex. When a computer asks your opinion about themselves you reply favorably; contrary to when another computer asks you to evaluate the first computer

Step 6. Run it

Step 7. Summarize Ex. People are polite to computers too

General Steps Behind the experiments

2:08PM

Politeness Experiment

• Nass,C.,Steuer,J.,Tauber,E.,&Reeder,H.(1993,April).Anthropomorphism,agency,andethopoeia:computersassocialactors.InINTERACT'93andCHI'93conferencecompaniononHumanfactorsincomputingsystems(pp.111-112).ACM.

• Reeves,B.,&Nass,C.(1996).Howpeopletreatcomputers,television,andnewmedialikerealpeopleandplaces(p.21).CSLIPublicationsandCambridgeuniversitypress.

Rule 1 “When a computer asks a user about itself; the user will give more positive responses than when a different computer asks the same questions.”

Rule 2 “Because people are less honest when a computer asks about itself, the answers will be more homogeneous than when a different computer asks the same questions.”

(Reeves & Nass, 1996, P. 21)

Assumption Based on CASA

Paradigm - if the communication, interaction, instruction

and turn taking of a computer is close enough

to a human, and “suggest social presence,

people will respond accordingly.”

(Nass et al. 1993)

2:08PM

Person 1 provides statistics Person 1 enquires about his performance

Respondent provides Favorable response

Person 1 provides statistics Person 2 enquires about Person 1’s

performance

Respondent provides Less favorable response

• Reeves,B.,&Nass,C.(1996).Howpeopletreatcomputers,television,andnewmedialikerealpeopleandplaces.CSLIPublicationsandCambridgeuniversitypress.

2:08PM

Computer 1 provides statistics Computer 1 enquires about its performance

Respondent provides Favorable response

Computer 1 provides statistics Computer 2 enquires about Computer 1’s

performance

Respondent provides Less favorable response

2:08PM

• Reeves,B.,&Nass,C.(1996).Howpeopletreatcomputers,television,andnewmedialikerealpeopleandplaces.CSLIPublicationsandCambridgeuniversitypress.• Images.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember23,2015,fromhttps://comm.stanford.edu

People respond to media as real, even if they know it isn't reasonable to do so.

Reeves & Nass started a research project called

Social Responses to Communication Technologies At Stanford University

35 Studies were conducted where media replaced real people or environment

2:08PM

Media & Manners

Interpersonal Distance We evaluate intensely, pay more attention to & remember pictures of people who appear closer.

Flattery We are gullible to get flattered by responses from computers even when a praise is not warranted.

Judging Others and Ourselves A computer that criticizes others is perceived as smarter and less likable.

2:08PM

Media & Personality

Personality of Characters Important categories of media personalities (dominance/ submissive, Friendly/ Unfriendly) are readily recognizable by the viewer.

Personality of Interfaces People perceive computers using dominant texts are dominant (and vice versa) and identify with the computer with the similar traits as themselves.

Imitating Personality Dominant people prefer computers that starts out submissive and becomes dominant (and vice versa) - The rule of "what you gain is better than what you had" (P.105)

2:08PM

Media & Emotion

Good versus Bad Good/Bad is a primary evaluation. Human brain processes good materials in left hemisphere and bad material in right hemisphere

Negativity People do not like negative media but pays more attention to and remembers the message it contains

Arousal People respond by using same dimensions of emotions – valence and arousal – to media content that they use in real life.

2:08PM

Media & Social Roles

Specialists Contents labelled as ‘specialist’ is perceived as superior to the ‘generalist’

Teammates People teamed up with a computer will find similarity, and provide - better appraisal, cooperation, agreement to the computer

Gender People show gender stereotyping attitude towards computers depending on male/female voice type (Love-relationship vs technical knowledge)

Voices People assign individual voices to individual social actors.

Source Orientation Computers are the source of information not the programmers

2:08PM

Media & Form

Image Size Larger pictures are more arousing, better liked and remembered

Fidelity In case of audio high fidelity gets remembered better than low-fidelity contrary to images where they get evaluated similarly.

Synchrony Audio-Video asynchrony leads to negative evaluation

Motion People provides more attention to moving objects and orients to visual surprise

Scene Changes Visual cuts cause visual orienting response. Semantically related cuts are less intrusive. Frequency and amount of cuts impact attention.

Subliminal Image Judgement about media can be influenced by subliminal messages.

2:08PM

Summary of

Propositions

▪ Everyone responds socially and naturally to media

▪ Media are more similar than different ▪ The media equation is automatic ▪ Many different responses characterize

the media equation ▪ What seems true is more important

than what is true ▪ People respond to what is present ▪ People like simplicity ▪ Social and natural is easy

2:39PM

▪ Testability ▪ Simplicity ▪ Level of Agreement ▪ Purpose ▪ Understanding ▪ Stimulus

Evaluation of the

Theory

2:08PM

• BobandBeyond:AMicrosoftInsiderRemembers.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttp://www.technologizer.com/2010/03/29/bob-and-beyond-a-microsoft-insider-remembers/• Koo,J.,Kwac,J.,Ju,W.,Steinert,M.,Leifer,L.,&Nass,C.(2014).Whydidmycarjustdothat?Explainingsemi-autonomousdrivingactionstoimprovedriverunderstanding,trust,and

performance.InternationalJournalonInteractiveDesignandManufacturing(IJIDeM),9(4),269–275.http://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-014-0227-2• Nass,C.(2004).EtiquetteEquality:ExhibitionsandExpectationsofComputerPoliteness.CommunicationsoftheACM,47(4),35–37.http://doi.org/10.1145/975817.975841• Takayama,L.,&Nass,C.(2008).DriverSafetyandInformationfromAfar:AnExperimentalDrivingSimulatorStudyofWirelessvs.In-carInformationServices.Int.J.Hum.-Comput.Stud.,66(3),

173–184.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.06.005

Implication & Further Research

Microsoft BOB & Clippy

Both attempts received massive critique and bad publicity to the point that Microsoft revoked the options in later versions.

Drivers’ response to Autonomous CarsTakayama & Nass (2008); Koo et al (2014) provided design recommendations for designing in-car wireless systems. They found respondents trust their in-car system but takes more risks with it. Peoples’ emotion and driving pattern can be influenced by in-car system messages.

Media Equation in Different CulturesNass (2004) tested media equation in different countries and cultures and found support for the theory

2:08PM

Variability in Interaction Level of Different Media

Different medias offers varying degrees of involvement in interaction. A television does not provide the same level of interaction as a artificial-intelligence embedded computer interface. Reeves & Nass test different types of responses using different media, do not measure how much those responses vary for different types of media.

2:08PM

Falsifiability & causal model of

the theory

The analogy based on 'automatic response' of our

brain makes the Media Equation Theory a post-positivist

theory.

we can never ascertain why people act the way they act. - Did they think of the media as a real person? - Or, because they thought of the interaction as a

real conversation and due to habitual obligation and norms associated with a conversation, they were being polite?

- Or, did they establish a shared understanding over the years of interaction with non-human sentient animals that anything that can show signs of sentience deserves the respect and politeness a sentient individual deserves.

We do not know the answer to these questions - what is the reality behind people's behavior in this way?

2:08PM

Thank You for listening

Any Questions?

Contact, Wen Geng & Zaki Haider

For further questions In Blackboard Discussion Board

Media Equation Presentation Draft (1)

Documents