2. “… individuals’
interactions with
computers, television,
and new media are
fundamentally social
and natural”
(Reeves & Nass, 1996, P. 5)
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places (p. 5). CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
• Cartoons. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://drawnbytom.com/cartoons
2:08 PM
6. • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places (p. 11). CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
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
2:08 PM
8. Politeness Experiment
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). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
?
?
2:08 PM
9. Politeness Experiment
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
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
11. 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.
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
12. 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)
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
13. 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.
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
14. 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
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
15. 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.
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
17. ▪ Testability
▪ Simplicity
▪ Level of Agreement
▪ Purpose
▪ Understanding
▪ Stimulus
Evaluation
of the
Theory
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
19. 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.
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
20. 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?
2:08 PM
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
21. Thank You for listening
Any Questions?
Contact,
Wen Geng & Zaki Haider
For further questions
In Blackboard Discussion Board
