When individuals apply social rules and social expectations while working on a computer, are they directly interacting with the computer as an independent social actor or source (the CAS model), or are they orienting to an unseen programmer or imagined person in another room (the CAM model)? Two studies provide critical tests of these competing models. In Study 1, all participants were exposed to an identical interaction with computers. In one condition, participants were told that they were dealing with computers; in another, they were told that they were interacting with the software programmers. Consistent with the CAS model, there were significant differences between the two conditions. Study 2 performed a constructive replication of Study 1 by replacing the programmer with a hypothetical networker. Again, differences between the two conditions provide evidence that people respond to the computer as an independent source of information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barley, S. R.
(1988). The social construction of a machine: Ritual, superstition, magical thinking, and other pragmatic responses to running a CT Scanner. In M. Lock & D. Gordon (Eds.), Biomedicine examined (pp. 497-539). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
2.
Chaiken, S.
(1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387-1397.
3.
Chaiken, S.
(1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
4.
DeBono, K. G.
, & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 541-546.
5.
Dennett, D. C.
(1988). Précis of the intentional stance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 495-546.
6.
Dennett, D. C.
(1991). True believers: The intentional strategy and why it works. In D. M. Rosenthal (Ed.), The nature of mind (pp. 339-353). New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Fogg, B. J.
, & Nass, C. (1997a). Do users reciprocate to computers? In Proceedings of the CHI Conference. New York: Association of Computing Machinery.
8.
Fogg, B. J.
, & Nass, C. (1997b). Silicon sycophants: Effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46 (5), 551-561.
9.
Hass, R. G.
(1988). Effects of source characteristics on cognitive responses and persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Heidegger, M.
(1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Harper & Row.
11.
Heider, F.
, & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243-259.
12.
Horton, D.
, & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observation on intimacy at a distance, Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.
13.
Houlberg, R.
(1984). Local television news audience and the para-social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 28, 423-429.
14.
Isbister, K.
, & Nass, C. (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters: Verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1), 251-267.
15.
Kiesler, S.
, Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.
16.
Langer, E.
(1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17.
Laurel, B.
(1993). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18.
Lee, E. J.
, Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2000). Can computer-generated speech have gender? An experimental test of gender stereotypes. In CHI 2000 Conference Companion. New York: Association of Computing Machinery.
19.
Levy, M. R.
(1979). Watching TV news as para-social interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 69-80.
20.
Moon, Y.
(1998). Intimate self-disclosure exchanges: Using computers to build reciprocal relationships with consumers (Working Paper No. 99-059). Boston: Harvard Business School.
21.
Moon, Y.
, & Nass, C. (1996). How “real” are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication Research, 23, 651-674.
22.
Morkes, J.
, Kernal, H., & Nass, C. (2000). Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication: A direct test of SRCT theory. Human-Computer Interaction, 14(4), 395-435.
23.
Nass, C.
, Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669-678.
24.
Nass, C., & Gong, L. (2000). [Maximization of consistency: Combining synthetic voices and synthetic faces]. Unpublished raw data.
25.
Nass, C.
, Isbister, K., & Lee, E. J. (2000). Truth is beauty: Researching conversational agents. In J. Castells (Ed.), Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge: MIT Press.
26.
Nass, C.
, Lombard, M., Henriksen, L., & Steuer, J. (1995). Anthropocentrism and computers. Behaviour and Information Technology, 14(4), 229-238.
27.
Nass, C.
, & Mason, L. (1990). On the study of technology and task: A variable-based approach. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 46-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Nass, C.
, & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.
29.
Nass, C.
, Moon, Y., & Carney, P. (1999). Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 1093-1110.
30.
Nass, C.
, Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 864-876.
31.
Nass, C.
, Reeves, B., & Leshner, G. (1996). Technology and roles: A tale of two TVs. Journal of Communication, 46(2), 121-128.
32.
Nass, C.
, & Steuer, J. (1993). Voices, boxes, and sources of messages: Computers and social actors. Human Communication Research, 19, 504-527.
33.
Nass, C.
, Steuer, J., Henriksen, L., & Dryer, D. C. (1994). Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: Performance assessments of computers subsequent to “self-” or “other-” evaluations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 543-559.
34.
Rafaeli, S. (1985). Interacting with media: Para-social interaction and real interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
35.
Rafaeli, S.
(1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. Hawkins, J. Weimann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 124-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Rafaeli, S.
(1990). Interacting with media: Para-social interaction and real interaction. In B. D. Ruben & L. A. Lievrouw (Eds.), Mediation, information, and communication: Information and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 125-181). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
37.
Reeves, B.
, & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press/CSLI.
38.
Rubin, A. M.
, & Perse, E. M. (1987). Audience activity and television news gratifications. Communication Research, 14, 58-84.
39.
Rubin, A. M.
, & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 36-53.
40.
Searle, J. R.
(1981). Minds, brains, and programs. In D. R. Hofstadter & D. C. Dennett (Eds.), The mind's I (pp. 353-372). Toronto: Bantam.
41.
Sproull, L.
, Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., & Walker, J. H. (1996). When the interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction, 11 (2), 97-124.
42.
Sternthal, B.
, Phillips, L., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 285-314.
43.
Sundar, S. S.
(1993, May). Communicator, programmer, or independent actor: What are computers? Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
44.
Sundar, S. S.
(1994a, August). Is human-computer interaction social or parasocial? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta, GA.
45.
Sundar, S. S.
(1994b, October). Psychosocial effects of self-referencing: Can a computer say “I”? Paper presented at the annual conference of Lifelike Computer Characters, Snowbird, UT.
46.
Sundar, S. S.
& Nass, C. (in press). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication.
47.
Turkle, S.
(1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster.
48.
Tversky, A.
, & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
49.
Weizenbaum, J.
(1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. San Francisco: Freeman.
50.
Wilson, E. J.
, & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 101-112.
51.
Winograd, T.
, & Flores, C. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
