Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring mindlessness as an explanation for the media equation: a study of stereotyping in computer tutorials

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study extends previous media equation research by empirically testing the mindlessness explanation of media equation behaviour. The current study explored the potential moderating effect of mood on media equation behaviour. Specifically, the study assessed whether participants’ tendency to stereotype when interacting with a computer varied as a function of mood. Seventy-six undergraduate students were exposed to either a positive or negative mood manipulation and then completed a computer-based tutorial on car engines. The tutorial was presented using either a male or female synthesised voice. Participants’ affective state, attitudes and opinions were assessed via questionnaire. Female participants in a positive mood showed a greater propensity to gender-stereotype computers than female participants in a negative mood, suggesting that media equation behaviour is more likely to result when people are in a mindless state. Male participants, however, did not show the same pattern of behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Readers interested in more detailed information regarding mindlessness are directed to Langer (1992) [29]. For details on similar subconscious processes and an exploration of how they may have developed see Reber (1993).

  2. Ethopoeia can be defined as the assignment of human attitudes, attentions or motives to non-human objects, in which people respond to computers in a social and natural way (see Nass et al. [3]).

  3. A synthetic voice, rather than a recording of a human voice was employed on the basis that a synthetic voice was far less suggestive of humanness on the part of the computer. This allows for a more conservative test of the media equation, as arguably, a human voice might suggest to participants they are actually interacting with another human through the computer, or imply that social reactions are more appropriate.

  4. It should be noted that the age range in the current study was relatively narrow, which has implications for the generalisability of the findings. This was not considered to be a major issue, as no research linking age to either the media equation, mindlessness or stereotyping could be found. However, future research incorporating participants of a wider age range would provide more generalisable results.

  5. The “ttl” voice, with a pitch of 220, speech range of 40 and a speech rate of 0.95 was used for the female voice and the “mwm” voice, with a pitch of 115, speech range of 19 and a speech rate of 0.95 was used for the male voice.

References

  1. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fogg B, Nass C (1997) Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. Int J Hum Comput Stud 46:551–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber E (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fogg B, Nass C (1997) How users reciprocate to computers: an experiment that demonstrates behaviour change. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  5. Takeuchi Y et al (1998) Social response and cultural dependency in human–computer interaction. In: PRICAI 98, Singapore

  6. Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Takeuchi Y et al (2000) A cultural perspective in social interface. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson D, Gardner J, Wiles J (2004) Experience as a moderator of the media equation: the impact of flattery and praise. Int J Hum Comput Stud 61:237–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nass C, Moon Y, Carney P (1999) Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. J Appl Soc Psychol 29(5):1093–1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nass C, Reeves B, Leshner G (1996) Technology and roles: a tale of two TVs. J Commun 46(2):121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nass C et al (1994) Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: performance assessments of computers subsequent to “self-” or “other-” evaluations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 40:543–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Moon Y, Nass C (1996) How “real” are computer personalities?: psychological responses to personality types in human–computer interaction. Commun Res 23(6):651–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rickenberg R, Reeves B (2000) The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lee K, Nass C (2003) Designing social presence of social actors in human–computer interaction. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Ft Lauderdale

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gong L, Lai J (2001) Shall we mix synthetic speech and human speech? Impact on users’ performance, perception and attitude. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nass C, Lee K (2001) Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity attraction, and consistency attraction. J Exp Psychol Appl 7(3):171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nass C, Lee K (2000) Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experimental test of similarity attraction. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  18. Duck S (1973) Personality similarity and friendship choice: similarity of what, when? J Personal 41(4):543–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Byrne D, Clore G, Smeaton G (1986) The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes effect anything? J Person Soc Psychol 51:1167–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Neimeyer R, Mitchell K (1988) Similarity and attraction: a longitudinal study. J Soc Pers Relat 5(2):131–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Isbister K et al (2000) Helper agent: designing an assistant for human–human interaction in a virtual meeting space. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nakanishi H et al (2003) Can software agents influence human relations? Balance theory in agent-mediated communities. In: International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. ACM, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  23. Klein J, Moon Y, Picard R (1999) This computer responds to user frustration: theory, design, results and implications. Interact Comput 14(2):119–140

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nass C, Fogg B, Moon Y (1995) How powerful is social identity? Affiliation effects in human–computer interaction. [Article] 1995, 23 April 1995 [cited 2002 28/03]; Available from: http://www.stanford.edu/group/commdept/oldstuff/srct_pages/Affiliation_conformity.html

  25. Nass C, Fogg B, Moon Y (1996) Can computers be teammates? Int J Hum Comput Stud 45:669–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Moon Y, Nass C (1998) Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human–computer interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 49:79–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nass C, Steuer J (1993) Voices, boxes and sources of messages: computers as social actors. Hum Commun Res 19(4):504–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sundar S, Nass C (2000) Source orientation in human-computer interaction: programmer, networker or independent social actor? Commun Res 27(6):683–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Langer E (1992) Matters of mind: mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Conscious Cognit Int J 1(4):289–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Johnson D, Gardner J (2005) Effects of team-based computer interaction: the media equation and game design considerations. In: Kishino F et al (eds) Entertainment computing—ICEC 2005. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Laxenburg, pp 468–479

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Johnson D, Gardner J (2007) The media equation and team formation: further evidence for experience as a moderator. Int J Hum Comput Stud 65:111–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Langer E, Imber L (1979) When practice makes imperfect: debilitating effects of overlearning. J Personal Soc Psychol 37:2014–2024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Langer E (1991) Mindfulness: choice and control in everyday life. Harvill, London

    Google Scholar 

  34. Langer E (2000) Mindful learning. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 9(6):220–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brown K, Ryan R (2003) The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well being. J Personal Soc Psychol 84(4):822–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Langer E, Weinman C (1981) When thinking disrupts intellectual performance: mindfulness on an overlearned task. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 7(2):240–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Langer E (1989) Minding matters: the consequences of mindlessness–mindfulness. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, San Diego, pp 137–173

    Google Scholar 

  38. Burgoon J, Berger C, Waldron V (2000) Mindfulness and interpersonal communication. J Soc Issues 56(1):105–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Folkes V (1985) Mindlessness or mindfulness: a partial replication and extension of Langer, Blank and Chanowitz. J Personal Soc Psychol 48(3):600–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Langer E, Imber L (1980) Role of mindlessness in the perception of deviance. J Personal Soc Psychol 39(3):360–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Langer E, Bashner R, Chanowitz B (1985) Decreasing prejudice by increasing discrimination. J Personal Soc Psychol 49(1):113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Langer E, Piper A (1987) The prevention of mindlessness. J Personal Soc Psychol 53(2):280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pressley M et al (1992) Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educ Psychol 27(1):91–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schwarz N, Bless H (1991) Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of affective states on analytic reasoning. In: Forgas J (ed) Emotion and social judgments. International series in experimental social psychology. Pergamon, New York, pp 55–71

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bless H et al (1996) Mood and the use of scripts: does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness? J Personal Soc Psychol 7(4):665–679

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vaughan G, Hogg M (1995) Introduction to social psychology. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, xv, 438

  47. Nass C, Moon Y, Green N (1997) Are computers gender neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. J Appl Soc Psychol 27:864–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Eagly A (1983) Gender and social influence: a social psychological analysis. Am Psychol 38:971–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lee E, Nass C, Brave S (2000) Can computer-generated speech have gender? An experimental test of gender stereotypes, in CHI 2000 extended Abstracts. ACM, Amsterdam, pp 289–290

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lee E (2003) Effects of “gender” of the computer on informational social influence: the moderating role of task type. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58:347–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mullennix J et al (2003) Social perception of male and female computer synthesised speech. Comput Hum Behav 19:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bem S (1974) The measurement of psychological androgyny. J Consult Clin Psychol 42(2):155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gaertner S et al (2000) How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? In: Stangor C (ed) Stereotypes and prejudice. Psychology, Philadelphia, pp 435–450

    Google Scholar 

  54. Eberhardt J, Fiske S (1996) Motivating individuals to change: what is a target to do? In: Macrae C, Stangor C, Hewstone M (eds) Stereotypes and stereotyping. The Guildford Press, New York, pp 369–415

    Google Scholar 

  55. Alvarez-Torres M, Mishra P, Zhao Y (2001) Judging a book by its cover! Cultural stereotyping of interactive media and its effect on the recall of text information. J Educ Multimed Hypermedia 10(2):161–183

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kunda Z (1999) Stereotypes. In: Social cognition: making sense of people. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, pp 313–393

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hewstone M (1996) Contact and categorisation: social psychological interventions to change intergroup relations. In: Macrae C, Stangor C, Hewstone M (eds) Stereotypes and Stereotyping. The Guildford Press, New York, pp 323–368

    Google Scholar 

  58. Abele A (2000) The experience of a positive mood and its impact on intergroup differentiation and stereotyping. In: Bless H, Forgas J (eds) The message within: the role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior. Psychology Press, New York, pp 402

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Z2-202, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia

    Daniel Johnson

  2. School of Business, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    John Gardner

  3. CSIRO, Exploration and Mining, Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies (QCAT), PO Box 883, Kenmore, QLD, 4069, Australia

    John Gardner

Authors
  1. Daniel Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Gardner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, D., Gardner, J. Exploring mindlessness as an explanation for the media equation: a study of stereotyping in computer tutorials. Pers Ubiquit Comput 13, 151–163 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-007-0193-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-007-0193-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation