It is becoming commonplace for humans to use technology to enhance and augment their understanding of the world. In this study, we investigated whether attention to these forms of technology can be predicted by scores on the Technomorphic Tendencies Scale (TTS) (Lum et al., 2011). Participants completed the TTS and were eye tracked while viewing pictures of models wearing various types of technological devices (e.g., an eye tracker; a Bluetooth headset). Higher TTS scorers tended to have more fixations and for a shorter duration of time when compared with the lower TTS Scorers. The Technomorphic Tendencies Scale is predictive of attention directed to technology when making first impressions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArkinR. C. (1989). Motor schema-based mobile robot navigation. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 92-112.
2.
BaldwinM. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, (3), 461-484.
3.
CaporealL.R. (1986). Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: two faces of the human machine. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 215-234.
4.
ChristianB. (2011). The most human human. Ney York: Doubleday.
5.
ClementC.A.GentnerD. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 15, 89-132.
6.
HalseS. E.LumH. C.SimsV. K.ChinM. G. (2011). First impressions: Is it you or the things you’re with? Poster presented at the APS 23rd Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.
7.
HolyoakK.J.ThagardP. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52, 35-44.
8.
JacobR.J.K.KarnK.S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises (Section Commentary), In HyonaJ.RadachR.DeubelH. (Eds.) The Mind’s Eyes: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movements, Oxford, Elsevier Science.
9.
LearyD.E. (1992). Naming and knowing: Giving form to things unknown. Social Research, 62, 267-298.
LumH.C.SimsV.K.ChinM.G.LagattutaN.C. (2009). Perceptions of humans wearing technology. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53.
12.
LumH. C.SimsV. K.ChinM.G.HalseS. E. (2011). Are we becoming super-human cyborgs? Examination of technomorphism and the creation of a technomorphic tendencies scale. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55.
13.
NowakK. L.BloccaF. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence, 12 (5), 481–494
14.
PooleA.BallL.J. (2006). Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. In GhaouiC. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Pennsylvania: Idea Group, Inc.
15.
SpellmanB.A.HolyoakK.J. (1996). Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 307-346.
16.
StarkS. (1963). Creative leadership: Human vs. metal brains. The Academy of Management Journal, 6, (2), 160-169.
17.
TschabitscherH. (2011). How many emails are sent every day? Retrieved on April20, 2011 from http://www.radicati.com/
18.
TuringA. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, (236), 433-460.
19.
von AhnL.BlumM.LangfordJ. (2004). Telling humans and computers apart automatically. Communications of the ACM, 47, (2),56–60.
20.
WatersR. H. (1948). Mechanomorphism: a new term for an old mode of thought. Psychological Review, 55, 139-142.
