Prime Time Replay:
Stanford professor Clifford Nass
on "The Media Equation"
MsgId: *brain_storm(1)
Date: Fri May 2 20:30:57 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to another edition of Brainstorms! I'm your host, Rob Killheffer, Senior Editor at Omni, and with me tonight is Clifford Nass, co-author of a fascinating book called THE MEDIA EQUATION. In it, Nass and his co-author examine the many ways in which people treat media -- television, computers, and other display devices -- as social beings, interacting with them in much the same way they do with things in the "real" world. Welcome, Professor Nass!
MsgId: *brain_storm(2)
Date: Fri May 2 20:31:45 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
Thanks for inviting me, Rob.
MsgId: *brain_storm(3)
Date: Fri May 2 20:32:40 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
Thanks especially for appearing on such short notice. Why don't we start by introducing the audience to the concept of "the media equation." What do you mean by that?
MsgId: *brain_storm(4)
Date: Fri May 2 20:34:12 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
The term "media equation" means that "media equals real life." Essentially, people treat computers, television, and other media as if they were dealing with real people. For example, people are polite to computers. In one experiment, we had people work with a computer. They were then asked to assess the performance of the computer. Half of the people were asked a series of questions by the computer they just worked with; the other half were asked the same questions by a different computer. Amazingly, people gave significantly nicer answers when the computer asked about itself than when the different computer asked!
MsgId: *brain_storm(6)
Date: Fri May 2 20:37:50 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
That's funny. I notice people treating computers that way a lot around the office. Does it hold true with other media, such as TV or radio?
MsgId: *brain_storm(7)
Date: Fri May 2 20:39:34 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
Absolutely! We've shown that when people see a large face on a screen, they behave as if the face invaded their body space, becoming more aroused. We're interested in responses that are stronger and broader than just people shouting at their computer or television.
MsgId: *brain_storm(9)
Date: Fri May 2 20:41:25 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
And subtler, too. People shout at their toasters and cars, right, but from what you said in your book, that's not the same as what's happening with the media equation.
MsgId: *brain_storm(11)
Date: Fri May 2 20:43:45 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
For example, we've shown that people apply gender stereotypes to computers with voices. A comptuer with a female voice was seen as a better teacher of love and relationships and a worse teacher of technical subjects than a computer with a male voice, even though they said the same things.
MsgId: *brain_storm(14)
Date: Fri May 2 20:45:26 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
What do you think is happening with the media equation? That is, what's going on in people's heads? Are they aware of what they're doing? Do they really think these machines -- TVs, computers -- are somehow sentient?
MsgId: *brain_storm(15)
Date: Fri May 2 20:46:33 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
No one of the thousands of people in any of our studies thought that computers or other media were sentient, and everyone DENIED responding socially to media. Humans are not evolved to 20th century technologies. We're evolved to a world in which anything that interacts, uses language, fills a social role, etc., deserves human treatment. Our conscious brains have not caught up with these unconscious and automatic responses.
MsgId: *brain_storm(17)
Date: Fri May 2 20:50:30 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
How new or revolutionary are your findings? I mean, in some ways, haven't advertisers and marketeers known how people respond to media for a long time? Isn't that the principle that drives beer commercials, for instance, to clutter themselves up with bikini-clad models, knowing it will elicit an emotional response from the viewer?
MsgId: *brain_storm(18)
Date: Fri May 2 20:53:27 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
In the case of television, the idea that people think the images on the screen are real is also sometimes surprising. We're not surprised that most men like to look at beautiful women on the screen, but I think it is surprising that motion on the periphery of the screen affects us as much as would motion in the corner of our eye in real life.Or, to take another example, when the video and the audio in a picture are not synchronized, we don't blame the technology, we blame the speaker, and think that he or she is less honest, intelligent, likable, etc. It's the breadth and depth of effects that are so surprising.
MsgId: *brain_storm(21)
Date: Fri May 2 20:57:16 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
One thing I wondered while reading your book was whether you consider people's responses to books in the same league. Is it just a multimedia phenomenon, or does the way that people respond while reading a novel, for instance, have some of the same hallmarks?
MsgId: *brain_storm(22)
Date: Fri May 2 20:59:04 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
It's a great question. Certainly, we visualize when we read, and books can make us laugh or cry. The key differences between books and the newer technologies is that there was nothing in the environment in which humans evolved which was anything like books -- hence, books can't trick us the way new media can. Furthermore, people are aware of how books affect them and how they respond to books. They are much less aware of how they are affected by and respond to computers, television, and other new media.
MsgId: *brain_storm(24)
Date: Fri May 2 21:01:34 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
Is the media equation a bad thing, something people should be worried about? Or does it have positive ramifications?
MsgId: *brain_storm(25)
Date: Fri May 2 21:03:14 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
It's both good and bad. By understanding the media equation, designers can create products that are better liked, easier to use, more fun, etc.. On the other hand, a fundamental understanding of how humans work can also lead to negative consequences of manipulation. Our hope in writing the book, and in detailing literally hundreds of specific design rules, is that people will use the media equation to make better software, television content, etc.. We also think it's always important to know how people respond to technology, especially when those responses are counter-intuitive.
MsgId: *brain_storm(28)
Date: Fri May 2 21:06:47 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
Is the Macintosh graphical interface an example of the media equation at work -- that is, was the success of that approach an example of the (conscious or unconscious) application of the media equation insight to make a better machine?
MsgId: *brain_storm(29)
Date: Fri May 2 21:07:48 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
It was actually many of the other decisions in the Mac interface, rather than just the graphical elements, that demonstrated an understanding of "The Media Equation." For example, when you turned on the Mac, you saw a smiling face on the computer. Humans are built to smile back and respond positively to smiles, even if there on a computer. Much of the language of the error messages followed rules of politeness and flattery that are fundamental to human-human interaction. What the Mac designers had an intuition for is that human-computer interaction is the same as human-human interaction, at least in the brains of their users.
MsgId: *brain_storm(32)
Date: Fri May 2 21:10:33 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
Among the other examples in your book, you mentioned people's positive response to watching a politician on screen who approached the camera, thereby conveying a kind of intimacy with the audience. Do you think it's important for consumers -- as well as designers and manufacturers -- to become aware of these counterintuitive and subconscious responses to media, in order to arm themselves against manipulation, and, if so, how would you recommend people get better at recognizing their instinctive reactions?
MsgId: *brain_storm(33)
Date: Fri May 2 21:12:22 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
There's good news and bad news on this. The good news is that we can become conscious of these manipulations by thinking very hard about them and remaining vigilant. There is a price for this vigilant attempt to overcome our automatic responses -- it's hard to concentrate on the content. If you watch a scary movie and calm yourself down by saying, "it's only a movie, it's only a movie," you'll get calmer but you won't be able to follow the plot. Similarly, if you watch film or TV thinking about the manipulative techniques, it's going to be hard to remember who the good guy is or which candidate you should actually support. Human brains just aren't big enough.
MsgId: *brain_storm(35)
Date: Fri May 2 21:18:14 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
Aren't big enough, or aren't comfortable enough operating on several "tracks" at once -- particularly when they're trying to overcome responses that have evolved as tried-and-true in the natural environment. How powerful do you think these responses are? Is it the sort of thing that can be refined by knowledgeable designers to the point of a kind of mind-control, or are the responses necessarily subtler?
MsgId: *brain_storm(36)
Date: Fri May 2 21:20:23 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
It's not so much that we're not "comfortable" overcoming primitive responses; it's just plain hard to do. As far as the power of these responses, they are almost as powerful as they are in human-human or human-environment interactions. We did one experiment in which we wanted to see how people would respond to flattery from a computer. So we had a bunch of people work with a computer and receive positive evaluations. Half of the people were told that we had not written the evaluation software yet, so they were receiving random comments. However, just as the psychology literature shows that people are "suckers" for human flattery, people were suckers for computer flattery. People liked the computer just as much and thought they did just as well regardless of whether the praise was sincere or random (the same thing happens when humans deal with humans). Now, you could use this finding to design a "kindler and gentler" spelling checker that acknowledges hard words you spelled correctly (leading you to like the spell checker more), or you could use it to manipulate people.
MsgId: *brain_storm(40)
Date: Fri May 2 21:25:23 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
Let's follow up on that spell-checker example, and look at the positive application of the media equation. What are some of the specific recommendations you would make to designers of software, computers, and other media tools in order to improve the likability of their products? On what factors should they focus first?
MsgId: *brain_storm(41)
Date: Fri May 2 21:27:25 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
We've been involved in re-designing probably 50 different products in a variety of industries. For one company, we re-designed the error messages on their oscilloscope to follow the norms of politeness -- the engineers not only liked the scopes better, they thought that they were more accurate! For Microsoft Office 97, we cast the characters, making sure that they represented the range of personality types present in their user population. For a voice-mail company, we used the idea of good cop/bad cop so that people would like the company (have one voice use the company name and constantly say "I'm trying to get you through"; the other voice did all the "press 1 for ..."). People liked the company and felt bad that it had such a mean voice-mail system. The decision about the importance of which social rules to follow really depends on the product. However, the moral of the story is always the same: the more you conform to the social and natural expectations of humans, the happier and more productive the user will be.
MsgId: *brain_storm(44)
Date: Fri May 2 21:32:15 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
Do you think it's likely that, as more people grow up surrounded by computers and TV and other media, they'll develop better skills at distinguishing between "real" and "not real"? I think, for instance, of my own response to my ATM, which always thanks me when I'm done and tells me that it's been a pleasure serving me. I often have a slightly negative response: "what do you mean it's been a pleasure? does the bank expect me to think the ATM *enjoyed* itself?" Is that an adaptation in the making?
MsgId: *brain_storm(45)
Date: Fri May 2 21:35:20 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
For the most part, we don't think that continued exposure to technology will lessen "The Media Equation." It's hard to overcome 200,000 years of human evolution, even in a person's lifetime. The example you gave really illustrates the media equation: you would be angry at a person who unthinkingly said, "it's been a pleasure to serve you" for exactly the same reason. However, there's a lot of evidence that technologies that simply say "thank you" are actually liked better than those that don't. Just as there are people who are awkward socially even though they want to be suave, there are technologies that have the same problem. We hope that our book will help.
MsgId: *brain_storm(46)
Date: Fri May 2 21:36:15 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
We're getting close to the end of our show, so let me toss out one last question, a little more speculative than the rest. Are you familiar with Sherry Turkle's work studying the permutations of identity among people immersed in online communication -- the development of alternative identities, things like that? If so, I wonder if there's any connection -- if the social response we have to media is part of what enables people to develop such a strong transference of identity, and to respond so fully to other fictional characters when they're presented on a computer screen ... ?
MsgId: *brain_storm(47)
Date: Fri May 2 21:39:46 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
Although Turkle and Byron and I are focusin on different aspects of the uses of technology, there are definitely linkages. I think it feels natural to use media to present multiple sides of ourself precisely because it feels natural to use humans in the same way. Most people have different sets of friends; we act differently around each set, trying on various identities and letting those friends reflect our identity back to us. It's exactly the same with media.
MsgId: *brain_storm(48)
Date: Fri May 2 21:41:23 PDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 38.254.181.13
I think that's right. It's interesting how many corollary insights come once you start to think that human-media interactions are very much the same as human-human ones ... Well, I think we're out of time. Thanks once again, Professor Nass, for appearing here on Brainstorms -- I thought it was a delightful conversation. Thanks also to our audience, as always, and if any of you are interested in learning more about "the media equation," I recommend Professor Nass's book very highly. It's available in our bookstore, so order yourself a copy! And on that note, good night!
MsgId: *brain_storm(49)
Date: Fri May 2 21:42:06 PDT 1997
From: Clifford_Nass At: 36.125.0.238
Thanks for the great questions! It was a pleasure chatting with you.
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright (C) 1997 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.