Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers

The first experiment (Fogg & Nass, 1997) involved two tasks: a task in which a computer "helped" a user and a task in which the user was asked to "help" a computer. In Task 1, participants conducted a series of web searches with a computer; the results of the searches were either extremely useful or not at all useful. In Task 2, participants worked with a computer that was trying to create a color palette to match human perception. They were told that by making accurate comparisons of sets of presented colors, they could help the computer create this palette. Participants could choose how many comparisons to do: the more comparisons, the more the participant helped the computer. In one condition, participants performed Task 2 on the same computer that they performed Task 1; in the other condition, participants used different (but identical) computers for Tasks 1 and 2.

The results were consistent with reciprocity norms: Participants who worked with a helpful computer in Task 1 and then returned to the same computer in Task 2 performed significantly more "work" for the computer in Task 2, compared to participants who used two different computers for the two tasks. Same-computer participants even performed Task 2 with greater accuracy, a different measure of effort. There was also evidence of a "retaliation" effect: When participants worked with a computer in Task 1 that was not very helpful and then returned to the same computer in Task 2, they made significantly fewer comparisons than participants who used different computers.

Reciprocal self-disclosure. We decided to follow up this study with an investigation into reciprocal self-disclosure (Moon, in press). Research has shown that people are typically reluctant to divulge intimate information about themselves to anyone but their closest friends and relatives (e.g., Kelly & McKillop, 1996). One notable exception to this rule involves reciprocity: There is substantial evidence that people will engage in intimate self-disclosure--even with relative strangers--if they first become the recipients of such disclosures from their conversational partners (see Moon, in press, for a review). In short, disclosure "begets" disclosure, such that people who receive intimate disclosure feel obligated to respond with a personal disclosure of equal intimacy.

In this experiment, we were interested in whether people would engage in reciprocal self-disclosure with a computer, providing that the computer initiated the disclosure process by divulging information first. Participants were interviewed by a computer on a variety of topics. In the no-reciprocity condition, the computer asked the interview questions in a relatively straightforward manner, for example: "What has been your biggest disappointment in life?" or "What have you done in your life that you feel most guilty about?"

In the reciprocity condition, the computer preceded each interview question with some seemingly parallel information about itself: "This computer has been configured to run at speeds up to 266 MHz. But 90% of computer users don't use applications that require these speeds. So this computer rarely gets used to its full potential. What has been your biggest disappointment in life?" or "There are times when this computer crashes for reasons that are not apparent to its user. It usually does this at the most inopportune time, causing great inconvenience to the user. What have you done in your life that you feel most guilty about?" The information disclosed by the computer was descriptive in nature and always referred to factual matters. The computer never made a statement that implied that it had emotions, feelings, attitudes, or motivations, and it never referred to itself as "I."