You are here:

Affective Feedback from Computers and its Effect on Perceived Ability and Affect: A Test of the Computers as Social Actor Hypothesis
Article

, Michigan State University, United States

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 15, Number 1, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

We report an experimental study that looked at two questions: (a) The effect of affective feedback from computers on participants' motivation and self-perception of ability; and (b) whether people respond similarly to computer feedback as they do to human feedback. This study, framed within the Computers As Social Actors (CASA) framework, essentially replicated a prior study on human-human interaction (Meyer, Mittag, & Engler, 1986) except that human evaluators were replaced with computer evaluators. The Meyer et. al. study showed that there was a paradoxical relationship between praise and blame feedback and students perception of ability and motivation to engage in a task. Results of our study indicate that, consistent with the CASA hypothesis, people do respond to praise and blame feedback when provided by a computer. However, there are important differences between the results of our study and the Meyer et. al. study. The participants in our study took the feedback from the computer at “face value” and seemed unwilling to commit to the same level of “deep psychological processing” about intentionality as they appeared to do with human respondents. We believe that this research combining existing theory and research on motivation and human computer interaction offers significant implications for the design of educational technology and also points to directions for future research.

Citation

Mishra, P. (2006). Affective Feedback from Computers and its Effect on Perceived Ability and Affect: A Test of the Computers as Social Actor Hypothesis. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(1), 107-131. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 27, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. 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. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 161-183.
  2. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Baron-Cohen, S. (1997). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  4. Brophy, J.E. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1) 5-32.
  5. Cassell, J., & Thorisson, K. R. (1999). The power of a nod and a glance: Envelope vs. Emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Applied Artifi cial Intelligence, 13(4-5), 519-538.
  6. Cawsey, A. (1989). Explanatory dialogues. Interacting with Computers, 1, 6992.
  7. Delamere, T. (1996). The importance of interlanguage errors with respect to stereotyping by native speakers in their judgments of second language learners’ performance. System, 24(3), 279-297.
  8. Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ferdig, R. E., Mishra, P. (2004). Emotional responses to computers: Experiences in unfairness, anger and spite. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypertext. 13. 2, P. 143-161.
  9. Ferrari, G. (1986). Man machine interaction in natural language: Computational models for dialogue. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, 5(2), 163-174.
  10. Fogg, B. J., & Nass, C. (1997). Silicon sycophants: Effects of computers that fl atter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(5), 551-561. Gaines, B. R. (1981). The technology of integration—dialogue programming rules. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 14, 133-150.
  11. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107-119.
  12. Ginott, H. (1965). Between parent and child. New York: Macmillan.
  13. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, thoughts and theories. Cambridge Mass.: Bradford, MIT Press.
  14. Graham, S. (1984). Communicating sympathy and anger to black and white children: The cognitive (attributional) consequences of affective cues. Journal of Personalitv and Social Psvchology, 47(1), 40-54.
  15. Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers sometimes do. In S. Graham & V. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal con- fl ict, (pp. 17-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  16. Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 5-39.
  17. Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 774-795.
  18. Hershey, K., Mishra, P., & Altermatt, E. (2005). All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 113127.
  19. Isbister, K., & Nass, C. (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters: Verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(1), 251-267.
  20. Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artifi cial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78.
  21. Kanouse, D.E., Gumpert, P., & Canavan-Gumpert, D. (1981). The semantics of praise. In J.H.Harvey, W.Ickes, & R.F.Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (97-115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  22. Kaufmann, W.J., & Smarr, L. L. (1993). Supercomputing and the transformation of science. New York: W. H. Freeman.
  23. Lajoie, S., & Derry, S. (1993) Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  25. Langer, E. J. (1992). Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 1, 289-305.
  26. Laurel, B. (1997). Interface agents: Metaphors with character. In J.M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 67-77). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  27. Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Confl icting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20, 217-231.
  28. Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gurtner, J. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
  29. Maes P. (1997). Humanizing the global computer. Interview in: IEEE Internet Computing, 1(4).
  30. Maes, P., & Kozierok, R. (1993). Learning interface agents. In Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artifi cial Intelligence, AAAI-93,(pp. 459-464), Washington, DC.
  31. Meyer, W.U. (1982). Indirect communications about perceived ability estimates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 888-897.
  32. Meyer, W.U. (1992). Paradoxical effects of praise and criticism in perceived ability. In W. Strobe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 259-283). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  33. Meyer, W.U., Mittag, W., & Engler, U. (1986). Some effects of praise and blame on perceived ability and affect. Social Cognition, 4(3), 293-308.
  34. Mishra, P., Nicholson, M., & Wojcikiewicz, S. (2001/2004). Does my wordprocessor have a personality? Topffer’s law and educational technology. Journal
  35. Mishra, P., Wojcikiewicz, S., & Nicholson, M. (2002). Taking things at face value: A review of the media equation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 219-226.
  36. Nass, C. & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.
  37. Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(6), 669-678.
  38. 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.
  39. Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 864-876.
  40. Nicholls, J. G., & Miller, A. T. (1984). Reasoning about the ability of self and others: A developmental study. Child Development, 55(1990-1999).
  41. Nielsen, J. (1990). Traditional dialogue design applied to modern user interfaces. Communications of the ACM, 33, 109-118.
  42. Parsons, J., Kaczala, C., & Meece, J. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Classroom infl uences. Child Development, 53, 322-339. Picard, R.W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1991). Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 27-32.
  43. Raisler, I. (1976). Differential response to the same message delivered by native and foreign speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 9(3), 256-259.
  44. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media as real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/CSLI.
  45. Schmandt, C. (1994). Voice communication with computers. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  46. Schurick, J. M., Williges, B. H., & Maynard, J. F. (1985). User feedback requirements with automatic speech recognition. Ergonomics, 28, 1543-1555.
  47. Shepard, R. N. (1990). Mind sights: Original visual illusions, ambiguities and other anomalies. New York: W. H. Freeman.
  48. Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  49. Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),. Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85-112). New York: Simon & Schuster.
  50. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  51. Wang, P. S. P. (1991). Character and handwriting recognition: Expanding frontiers. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artifi cial Intelligence, 5(1-2), 1-382.
  52. Weary, G., Stanley, M.A., & Harvey, J. H. (1989). Attribution. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  53. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  54. Weiner, B., Graham, S., Stern, P., & Lawson, M. (1982). Using affective cues to infer causal thoughts. Developmental Psychology, 18, 278-286.
  55. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason. San Francisco: Freeman.
  56. Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.