Interacting Socially with the Internet of Things (IoT): Effects of Source Attribution and Specialization in Human–IoT Interaction

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 420-435

  Kim, Ki Joon ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Internet of Things; Issue Involvement; Perceived Expertise; Social Presence; Source Attribution; Specialization

Indexed keywords

ISSUE INVOLVEMENTS; MULTIFUNCTIONALITY; MULTIPLE SOURCE; PERCEIVED EXPERTISE; POSITIVE ATTITUDE; SINGLE SOURCE; SOCIAL PRESENCE; SOURCE ATTRIBUTION; SPECIALISATION; SUBJECT EXPERIMENT;

INTERNET OF THINGS;

EID: 85004039833     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10836101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12177     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Accenture. (2013). The 2013 global consumer electronics products and services usage report. Retrieved from https://www.accenture.com/us-en/∼/media/Accenture/Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Technology_6/Accenture-Consumer-Electronics-Products-and-Services-Usage-Report.pdf
2. Addington, D. W. (1971). The effect of vocal variations on ratings of source credibility. Speech Monographs, 38, 242–247.
3. Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
4. Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).
5. Borgia, E. (2014). The Internet of Things vision: Key features, applications and open issues. Computer Communications, 54, 1–31.
6. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 143–177). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cohen, M. H., Giangola, J. P., & Balogh, J. (2004). Voice user interface design. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
8. de Melo, C., Carnevale, P., & Gratch, J. (2011). The effect of expression of anger and happiness in computer agents on negotiations with humans. In Proceedings of AAMAS'11 (pp. 937-944).
9. Harkins, S. G. & Petty, R. E. (1981). The effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 401–413.
10. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
11. Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Kolenic, A. III, Fitzgerald, H. E., Harold, R., & Von Eye, A. (2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: The new digital divide. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 437–442.
12. Katagiri, Y., Nass, C., & Takeuchi, Y. (2001). Cross-cultural studies of the computers are social actors paradigm: The case of reciprocity. In M. J. Smith, G. Salvendy, D. Harris, & R. Koubek (Eds.), Usability evaluation and interface design: Cognitive engineering, intelligent agents, and virtual reality (pp. 1558–1562). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Kim, K. J. (2014). Can smartphones be specialists? Effects of specialization in mobile advertising. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 640–647.
14. Kim, K. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2014). Does screen size matter for smartphones? Utilitarian and hedonic effects of screen size on smartphone adoption. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(7), 466–473.
15. Kim, K. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Mobile persuasion: Can screen size and presentation mode make a difference to trust? Human Communication Research, 42(1), 45–70.
16. Kim, K. J., Park, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2013). Caregiving role in human–robot interaction: A study of the mediating effects of perceived benefit and social presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1799–1806.
17. Koh, Y. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Heuristic versus systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research, 36(2), 103–124.
18. Kopetz, H. (2011). Real-time systems: Design principles for distributed embedded applications. New York: Springer.
19. Langer, E. L. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology, vol. 22 (pp. 137–173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
20. Lee, J., Kim, K. J., Lee, S., & Shin, D. (2015). Can autonomous vehicles be safe and trustworthy? Effects of appearance and autonomy of unmanned driving systems. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 31(10), 682–691.
21. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50.
22. Lee, K. M., & Nass, C. (2004). The multiple source effect and synthesized speech: Doubly-disembodied language as a conceptual framework. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 182–207.
23. Lee, K. M., Peng, W., Jin, S, & Yan, C. (2006). Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 754–772.
24. Leshner, G., Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1998). Switching channels: The effects of television channels on the mental representations of television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 21–33.
25. Macho, S., & Ledermann, T. (2011). Estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects in structural equation models: The phantom model approach. Psychological Methods, 16(1), 34–43.
26. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York: Signet.
27. 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, 31(8), 557–562.
28. Nass, C., & Lee, K. M. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7(3), 171–181.
29. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.
30. 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.
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., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of CHI'94 (pp. 72–78).
33. Oh, J., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). How does interactivity persuade? Effects of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 213–236.
34. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
35. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue-involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915–1926.
36. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–209). San Diego, CA: Academic 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.
38. Rindskopf, D. (1984). Using phantom and imaginary latent variables to parameterize constraints in linear structural models. Psychometrika, 49(1), 37–47.
39. Shin, D. (2014). Socio-technical framework for Internet-of-Things design: A human-centered design for the Internet of Things. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 519–531.
40. Sundar, S. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 480–499.
41. Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72–100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
42. Sundar, S. S., Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Hastall, M. R. (2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 366–378.
43. Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 52–72.
44. Warschauer, M. (2003). Demystifying the digital divide. Scientific American, 289(2), 42–47.
45. Yan, Z., Zhang, P., & Vasilakos, A. V. (2014). A survey on trust management for Internet of Things. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 42, 120–134.
46. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.