Phil Turner
ABSTRACT
A principal, but largely unexplored, use of our cognition when using interacting technology involves pretending. To pretend is to believe that which is not the case, for example, when we use the desktop on our personal computer we are pretending, that is, we are pretending that the screen is a desktop upon which windows reside. But, of course, the screen really isn't a desktop.
Similarly when we engage in scenario- or persona-based design we are pretending about the settings, narrative, contexts and agents involved. Although there are exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the contents of these different kinds of stories are not the case. We also often pretend when we engage in the evaluation of these technologies (e.g. in the Wizard of Oz technique we "ignore the man behind the curtain"). We are pretending when we ascribe human-like qualities to digital technology. In each we temporarily believe something to be the case which is not.
If we add the experience of tele- and social-presence to this, and the diverse experiences which can arise from using digital technology which too are predicted on pretending, then we are prompted to propose that human computer interaction and cognitive ergonomics are largely built on pretending and make believe.
If this premise is accepted (and if not, please pretend for a moment), there are a number of interesting consequences.
- Carroll, J. M. (2003). Introduction: Towards a multidisciplinary science of human--computer interaction. In J. Carroll (Ed.) HCI models, theories and Frameworks. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. 1--9Google Scholar
- Card, Moran, & Newell (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rakoczy H, Tomasello M, and Striano T. (2004) Young children know that trying is not pretending: a test of the "behaving-as-if" construal of children's understanding of pretense. Developmental Psychology, 40, 388--399.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (2000) Consider the source: the evolution of adaptations for decoupling and metarepresentation. In D. Sperber (Ed.) Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Clark, A. (2008) Supersizing the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Strawson, P. F. (1970) Imagination and Perception., In L. Foster and J. W. Swanson, (eds.) On Experience and Theory Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 31--54.Google Scholar
- Walton, K. L. (1990) Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973) What the mind's eye tells the mind's brain: a critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 1--24Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981) The imagery debate: analogue versus tacit knowledge. Psychological Review, 86, 383--394.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ryan, M.L. (2001) Narrative as Virtual Reality. Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Google ScholarDigital Library
- Air Guitar (2013) www.airguitarworldchampionships.com {last retrieved 30th December 2013}Google Scholar
- Goldstein, T R and Bloom, P (2011) The mind on stage: why cognitive scientists should study acting. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 141--142.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McGonigal J (2011) Reality is broken. Jonathan Cape, UKGoogle Scholar
- Lillard, A., Nishida, T., Massaro, D., Vaish, A. and Ma, L. (2007) Signs of Pretense Across Age and Scenario. Infancy, 11(1), 1--30Google ScholarCross Ref
- Toon, A. (2010) Models as make-believe. In R. Frigg & M. Hunter (Eds.) Beyond Mimesis and Convention. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 71--96Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reeves, B. and Nass, C. (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television And New Media Like Real People And Places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kinsley, S. (2012) Futures in the making: practices to anticipate `ubiquitous computing'. Environment and Planning A, 44, 1554--1569.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carroll, J. M. (Ed.) (1995) Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development, New York: John Wiley and Sons Google ScholarDigital Library
- Howard, S., Carroll, J., Murphy, J. and Peck, J. Using `Endowed Props' In Scenario-Based Design, Proc. NordiCHI 2002. October 19-23, 2002, Aarhus, Denmark. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Svanaes, D. and Seland, G. (2004), "Putting the users center stage: role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems," In Proc. CHI 2004, New York: ACM Press, 479--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pruitt, J. and Adlin, T. (2006) The Persona Lifecycle. San Francisco: Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
- Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (1991) Cardboard computers - Mocking-it-up or hands-on the future. In Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. Eds., Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cooper, A.L (1999) The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Indianapolis: Sams Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benyon, D. (2013) Designing Interactive Systems. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Floyd, C. A (1984) A Systematic Look at Prototyping. In Approaches to Prototyping. R. Budde et al, (Eds)., New York: Springer Verlag, New York, 1--18.Google Scholar
- Green, P. and Wei-Haas, L. (1985). The Rapid Development of User Interfaces: Experience with the Wizard of Oz Method. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society-29th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 470--474Google ScholarCross Ref
- Snyder C. (2003) Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy Way to Design and Refine User Interfaces. San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. and Preece, J. (2011) Interaction Design, (3rd Edn) Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- BSI (2010) Ergonomics of human-system interaction, Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (BS EN ISO 9241-210:2010), BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Nass, C. and Moon, Y. (2000) Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81--103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Turner, P (in submission) Presence: is it just pretending? International Journal of Human Computer Science.Google Scholar
- Turner, P. (2013) How we Cope with Digital Technology. Morgan & ClayPool Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nichols, S. and Stich, S. (2005) Mindreading: A Cognitive Theory of Pretense. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Leslie, A. (1987) Pretense and Representation: The Origins of "Theory of Mind". Psychological Review, 94(4), 412--426Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gendler T.S. (2008) Alief and belief. Journal of Philosophy, 105, 634--663.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- It's Not Interaction, It's Make Believe
Recommendations
Gesture-based interaction design: communication and cognition
CHI EA '14: CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis workshop explores and identifies the cognitive issues fundamental to the design of gestural interactive systems. To achieve this, a dialogue will be facilitated among researchers in the cognitive science of gesture and gestural interaction within ...
The measurement of maladaptive cognitions underlying problematic video-game playing among adults
Research has shown that some individuals can develop excessive patterns of video-gaming, leading to significant psychological and interpersonal problems. Recent reviews of problematic gaming suggest that treatment is best approached from a cognitive-...
Reverse Psychologism, Cognition and Content
The confusion between cognitive states and the content of cognitive states that gives rise to psychologism also gives rise to reverse psychologism. Weak reverse psychologism says that we can study cognitive states by studying content – for instance, ...
Comments