This research was supported in part by two grants from U.S. West Advanced Technologies. Very helpful comments were provided by Steven Bulick, Steven Chaffee, D. Chris Dryer, Daniel Gilbert, Howie Giles, Lisa Henriksen, Sara Kiesler, Barbara Levitt, Matthew Lombard, Geetu Melwani, Heidi Reeder, Byron Reeves, Donald Roberts, Ellen Tauber, and two anonymous reviewers.
Voices, Boxes, and Sources of Messages
Computers and Social Actors
Article first published online: 17 MAR 2006
Human Communication Research
Volume 19, Issue 4, pages 504–527, June 1993
How to Cite
NASS, C. and STEUER, J. (1993), Voices, Boxes, and Sources of Messages. Human Communication Research, 19: 504–527. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00311.x
- Issue published online: 17 MAR 2006
- Article first published online: 17 MAR 2006
Can adults be induced to use social rules distinguishing “self” and “other” to respond to the behaviors of technologies? In a 2×2×2 between-subjects laboratory experiment involving the use of multiple computers with voice output, 88 computer-literate college students used a computer for tutoring and a different computer for testing. The performance of the tutoring session was either praised or criticized (Manipulation 1) in the same voice as the tutoring session or a distinct voice (Manipulation 2) via the computer (box) that performed the tutoring or a distinct computer (box; Manipulation 3). Respondents were shown to use voices but not boxes to distinguish “self” from “other” behavior in applying the social rules “Performance evaluations from others are more accurate than are performance evaluations of self,”“Praise from others is friendlier than praise from self,” and “Criticism from self is friendlier than is criticism from others,” to evaluate the tutoring and evaluation session.