Flattery may get computers somewhere, sometimes: The moderating role of output modality, computer gender, and user gender

International Journal of Human Computer Studies

Volumn 66, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 789-800

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a  

^a Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Computers Are Social Actors (CASA); Flattery; Output modality

Indexed keywords

NONMETALS; SILICON;

CARTOON CHARACTERS; COMPUTERS ARE SOCIAL ACTORS (CASA); CORRESPONDING EFFECTS; FLATTERY; HUMAN-COMPUTER; OUTPUT MODALITY; PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS; SOCIAL ACTORS; SYNTHETIC SPEECH;

SPEECH;

EID: 52149123341     PISSN: 10715819     EISSN: 10959300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.07.009     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alvaro E.M., and Burgoon M. Individual differences in responses to social influence attempts: theory and research on the effects of misanthropy. Communication Research 22 (1995) 347-384
2. Anderson J. Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (1980), W.H. Freeman, New York
3. Bailenson J.N., Blascovich J., Beall A.C., and Loomis J.M. Equilibrium revisited: mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence 10 (2001) 583-598
4. Bigot L.L., Jamet E., Rouet J.-F., and Amiel V. Mode and modal transfer effects on performance and discourse organization with an information retrieval dialogue system in natural language. Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 467-500
5. Bracken C.C., and Lombard M. Social presence and children: praise, intrinsic motivation, and learning with computers. Journal of Communication 54 (2004) 22-37
6. Burgoon M., and Klingle R.S. Gender differences in being influential and/or influenced: a challenge to prior explanations. In: Canary D.J., and Dindia K. (Eds). Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication: Critical Essays and Empirical Investigations of Sex and Gender in Interaction (1998), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 257-285
7. Carli L.L. Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues 57 (2001) 725-741
8. Cassell J., and Thorisson K.R. The power of a nod and a glance: envelope vs. emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 13 (1999) 519-538
9. Danks J. Comprehension in listening and reading: same of different?. In: Danks J., and Pezdek K. (Eds). Reading and Understanding (1980), International Reading Association, Newark, DE 1-39
10. Dutta-Bergman M.J. The impact of completeness and web use motivation on the credibility of e-health information. Journal of Communication 54 (2004) 253-269
11. Eagly A.H., and Chaiken S. An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator characteristics on opinion change: the case of communicator attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (1975) 136-144
12. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7 (1954) 117-140
13. Flanagin A.J., and Metzger M.J. The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society 9 (2007) 319-342
14. Fogg B.J. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do (2003), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA
15. Fogg B.J., and Nass C. Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46 (1997) 551-561
16. Foos P.W., and Goolkasian P. Presentation format effects in working memory: the role of attention. Memory and Cognition 33 (2005) 499-513
17. Gong L., Nass C., Simard C., and Takhteyev Y. When non-human is better than semi-human: consistency in speech interfaces. In: Smith M.J., Salvendy G., Harris D., and Koubek R. (Eds). Usability Evaluation and Interface Design: Cognitive Engineering, Intelligent Agents, and Virtual Reality (2001), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 1558-1562
18. Isbister K., and Nass C. Consistency of personality in interactive characters: verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53 (2000) 251-267
19. Kramer R.M. The sinister attribution error: paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motivation and Emotion 18 (1994) 199-230
20. Langer E.L. Minding matters: the consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. In: Berkowitz L. (Ed). Advances in Experimental Psychology vol. 22 (1989), Academic Press, San Diego, CA 137-173
21. Langer E.J., Blank A., and Chanowitz B. The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: the role of "placebic" information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (1978) 635-642
22. Lee E.-J. Effects of "gender" of the computer on informational social influence: the moderating role of task type. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58 (2003) 347-362
23. Lee E.-J., Nass C., and Brave S. Can computer-generated speech have gender? An experimental test of gender stereotype. CHI Extended Abstract (2000), ACM Press, New York 289-290
24. Main K.J., Dahl D.W., and Darke P.R. Deliberative and automatic bases of suspicion: empirical evidence of the sinister attribution error. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17 (2007) 59-69
25. Moon Y., and Nass C. How "real" are computer personalities?: psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication Research 23 (1996) 651-674
26. Morishima, Y., Nass, C., Bennett, C., Lee, K.M., 2001. Effects of "Gender" of computer-generated speech on credibility. Technical Report of IEICE TL2001-16, vol. 31(8), pp. 557-562.
27. Motley M.T. Mindfulness in solving communicators' dilemmas. Communication Monographs 59 (1992) 306-314
28. Mulac A. The gender-linked language effect: do language differences really make a difference?. In: Canary D.J., and Dindia K. (Eds). Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication: Critical Essays and Empirical Investigations of Sex and Sex in Interaction (1998), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 127-153
29. Nass C., and Brave S. Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship (2005), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
30. Nass C., and Lee K.M. Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 7 (2001) 171-181
31. Nass C., and Moon Y. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56 (2000) 81-103
32. Nass C., Fogg B.J., and Moon Y. Can computers be teammates?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45 (1996) 669-678
33. Nass C., Moon Y., and Green N. Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27 (1997) 864-876
34. Nass C., Moon Y., and Carney P. Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29 (1999) 1093-1110
35. Pandey J., and Singh P. Effects of machiavellianism, other-enhancement, and power-position on affect, power feeling, and evaluation of the ingratiator. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 121 (1987) 287-300
36. Posner M., Nissen M., and Klein R. Visual dominance: an information processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review 83 (1976) 157-171
37. Reeves B., and Nass C. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places (1996), Cambridge University Press, New York
38. Reber R., Schwarz N., and Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8 (2004) 364-382
39. Ridgeway C.L. Sex, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues 57 (2001) 637-655
40. Smither J. Short term memory demands in processing synthetic speech by old and young adults. Behavior and Information Technology 12 (1993) 330-335
41. Steuer, J., 1994. Vividness and source of evaluation as determinants of social responses toward mediated representations of agency. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, California.
42. Sundar S.S., and Nass C. Source orientation in human-computer interaction: programmer, networker, or independent social actor?. Communication Research 27 (2000) 683-703
43. Swann W.B., Hixon J.G., Stein-Seroussi A., and Gilbert D.T. The fleeting gleam of praise: cognitive processes underlying behavioral reactions to self-relevant feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (1990) 17-26
44. Vonk R. Self-serving interpretations of flattery: why ingratiation works. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (2002) 515-526
45. Warnick B. Online ethos: source credibility in an "authorless" environment. American Behavioral Scientist 48 (2004) 256-265
46. Wong W. Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23 (2001) 345-368