Advertisement

Are People Polite to Smartphones?

How Evaluations of Smartphones Depend on Who Is Asking
  • Astrid CarolusEmail author
  • Catharina Schmidt
  • Florian Schneider
  • Jule Mayr
  • Ricardo Muench
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10902)

Abstract

Studies following the CASA paradigm showed that computers sending social cues elicited social reactions in their human users who e.g. adopted social norms (Reeves and Nass 1996). As these reactions were originally exclusive for human-human interactions, the derived paradigm stated that “computers are social actors” (CASA; Nass et al. 1994) referring to the theoretical concept of media equation, basically saying that “media equals real life” (Reeves and Nass 1996, p. 5). Nass et al. (1999) focused on the norm of politeness. In their experiment they showed that the evaluation of a computer was more positive if the computer itself asked for it compared to another computer asking. Our study adopts this experimental approach. However, as technology has evolved since the 1990's we replaced desktop PCs with smartphones transferring the CASA paradigm to modern devices. In a laboratory experiment, participants (n = 108) interacted with a smartphone which they evaluated afterwards. There were three different settings with (1) the target phone itself (2) another given smartphone or (3) the participants’ own smartphone asking for the evaluation. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences between the first and third setting (F[2,105] = 3.35, p = .04, η2 = .06) with evaluations being significantly better if the target phone itself asked for them. Homogeneous answers were interpreted as an indicator of dishonesty. Results revealed that evaluations on one’s own smartphone were significantly less homogeneous than on the target phone (F[2,105] = 3.20, p = .05, η2 = .06). Moreover, within experimental group 3, the participants’ closeness to their own phone was shown to be significantly negatively associated with the evaluation of the target phone. In sum, results are interpreted as indicators of smartphones eliciting social norms of politeness. Hence, both the CASA paradigm and the integration of a psychological perspective constitute a heuristically fruitful approach for the analysis of users interacting with (modern) devices.

Keywords

CASA Smartphones Politeness Media equation 

References

  1. Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Smollan, D.: Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63(4), 596–612 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake, J., Davis, K.: Norms, values, and sanctions. In: Handbook of Modern Sociology, 101, pp. 456–484 (1964)Google Scholar
  3. Brown, P., Levinson, S.C.: Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In: Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pp. 56–311 (1978)Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D.: Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, 5th edn. Routledge, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  5. Carolus, A., Münch, R., Schmidt, C., Mayer, L., Schneider, F.: Pink stinks-at least for men. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2018. LNCS, vol. 10902, pp. 512–525. Springer, Las Vegas (2018)Google Scholar
  6. Carvalho, R.M., de Castro Andrade, R.M., de Oliveira, K.M., Travassos, G.H.: Test case design for context-aware applications: are we there yet? Inf. Softw. Technol. 88, 1–16 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cialdini, R., Trost, M.: Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn., pp. 151–192. McGraw-Hill, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  8. Finkel, S.E., Guterbock, T.M., Borg, M.J.: Race-of-interviewer effects in a preelection poll Virginia 1989. Public Opin. Q. 55(3), 313–330 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goffman, E.: Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  10. Goldstein, M., Alsiö, G., Werdenhoff, J.: The media equation does not always apply: people are not polite towards small computers. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 6(2), 87–96 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s007790200008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holtgraves, T.: Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness. J. Politeness Res. Lang. Behav. Cult. 1(1), 73–93 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, D., Gardner, J.: The media equation and team formation: further evidence for experience as a moderator. Int. J. Hum. Comput Stud. 65(2), 111–124 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, D., Gardner, J., Wiles, J.: Experience as a moderator of the media equation: the impact of flattery and praise. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 61, 237–258 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, K.J.: Can smartphones be specialists? effects of specialization in mobile advertising. Telematics Inform. 31(4), 640–647 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, E., Nass, C., Brave, S.: Can computer-generated speech have gender? an experimental test of gender stereotype. Paper presented at the Computer-Human Interaction (CHI) Conference, pp. 289–290 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. McLaren, B.M., DeLeeuw, K.E., Mayer, R.E.: A politeness effect in learning with web-based intelligent tutors. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 69(1–2), 70–79 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nass, C., Brave, S.: Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  18. Nass, C., Fogg, B.J., Moon, Y.: Can computers be teammates? Int. J. Hum. Comput Stud. 45, 669–678 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nass, C., Moon, Y.M., Carney, P.: Are people polite to computers? responses to computer-based interviewing systems. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29(5), 1093–1110 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00142.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B.J., Reeves, B., Dryer, D.C.: Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int. J. Hum. Comput Stud. 43, 223–239 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E.R.: Computers are social actors. In: CHI 1994 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing, pp. 72–78 (1994)Google Scholar
  22. Nomura, T., Saeki, K.: Effects of polite behaviors expressed by robots: a case study in Japan. In: Proceedings - 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, vol. 2, pp. 108–114. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  23. Pew Research Center: Mobile Fact Sheet. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
  24. Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation. How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  25. Salem, M., Ziadee, M., Sakr, M.: Effects of politeness and interaction context on perception and experience of HRI. In: Herrmann, G., Pearson, Martin J., Lenz, A., Bremner, P., Spiers, A., Leonards, U. (eds.) ICSR 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8239, pp. 531–541. Springer, Cham (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider, S., Nebel, S., Pradel, S., Rey, G.D.: Mind your Ps and Qs! How polite instructions affect learning with multimedia. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 546–555 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sherif, M.: The Psychology of Social Norms. Harper Torchbooks, Oxford (1936)Google Scholar
  28. Sproull, L.: Using electronic mail for data collection in organizational research. Acad. Manag. J. 29, 159–169 (1986)Google Scholar
  29. Stephan, E., Liberman, N., Trope, Y.: Politeness and psychological distance: a construal level perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98(2), 268–280 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sumner, F.B.: Further studies of the physical and chemical relations between fishes and their surrounding medium. Am. J. Physiol.-Legacy Content 19(1), 61–96 (1907)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P., Flament, C.: Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1(2), 149–178 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tajfel, H.: Differentiation Between Social Groups. Academic Press, London (1978)Google Scholar
  33. Tajfel, H.: Individuals and groups in social psychology. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 18, 183–190 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Triandis, H.C.: McGraw-Hill Series in Social Psychology. Culture and Social Behavior. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  35. Walsh, S.P., White, K.M., Cox, S., Young, R.M.: Keeping in constant touch: the predictors of young Australians’ mobile phone involvement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(1), 333–342 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Astrid Carolus
    • 1
    Email author
  • Catharina Schmidt
    • 1
  • Florian Schneider
    • 1
  • Jule Mayr
    • 1
  • Ricardo Muench
    • 1
  1. 1.Julius-Maximilians University WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations