skip to main content
10.1145/3473856.3474227acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmundcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

“It's okay, honey… shhh…” - The Media Equation and Computers-Are-Social-Actors-Hypothesis in Acute Care: “Ist ja gut, Schätzelein… shhh…” - Die Media Equation und Computers-Are-Social-Actors-Hypothese in der Akutmedizin

Published:13 September 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Technology is indispensable in acute care and is seen primarily as a tool. However, media equation research shows that people also respond socially and naturally to machines as if they were other people. Using qualitative data from participant observations (130 hours) and retrospective interviews (N = 9), we show that technology in acute care settings also elicits reactions as one would typically exhibit towards other people. Based on existing media equation research, we address four aspects: source orientation, specialization, and the computers-are-social-actors hypothesis. Finally, we draw conclusions for qualitative data collection, design, and evaluation of technology in acute care, and discuss how to support human-machine teamwork.

Technik ist in der Akutmedizin unverzichtbar und wird vor allem als Werkzeug gesehen. Die Forschung zur Media Equation zeigt jedoch, dass Menschen auch sozial und natürlich auf Maschinen reagieren, so als wären es andere Menschen. Wir zeigen anhand qualitativer Daten aus teilnehmenden Beobachtungen (130 Stunden) und retrospektiven Interviews (N = 9), dass Technik in der Akutmedizin ebenfalls Reaktionen auslöst, wie man sie üblicherweise gegenüber Mitmenschen zeigt. Dabei adressieren wir vier Aspekte der Media Equation Forschung: Negativität, Quellenorientierung, Spezialisierung und die Computers-Are-Social-Actors-Hypothese. Abschließend ziehen wir Schlussfolgerungen für qualitative Datenerhebungen, Design und Evaluation von Technik in der Akutmedizin, und diskutieren, wie die Zusammenarbeit von Mensch und Maschine im Team unterstützt werden kann.

References

  1. Olga Vl Bitkina, Hyun K. Kim, und Jaehyun Park. 2020. Usability and user experience of medical devices: An overview of the current state, analysis methodologies, and future challenges. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 76, 102932. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102932.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Virginia Braun und Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2, 77-101. https://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Virginia Braun und Victoria Clarke. 2020. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Uwe Flick. 2011. Das Episodische Interview. In Empirische Forschung und Soziale Arbeit: Ein Studienbuch, G. OELERICH and H.-U. OTTO Eds. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden, 273-280. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92708-4_17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jesse Fox, Sun Joo Grace Ahn, Joris H. Janssen, Leo Yeykelis, Kathryn Y. Segovia, und Jeremy N. Bailenson. 2015. Avatars Versus Agents: A Meta-Analysis Quantifying the Effect of Agency on Social Influence. J Hum.-Comput. Interact. 30, 5, 401–432. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.921494.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Andrew Gambino, Jesse Fox, und R. Ratan. 2020. Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonathan Grudin. 2016. From Tool to Partner: The Evolution of Human-Computer Interaction. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 10, 1 (January 2017), i-183. https://dx.doi.org/10.2200/S00745ED1V01Y201612HCI035.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Tobias Grundgeiger, Jörn Hurtienne, und Oliver Happel. 2020. Why and How to Approach User Experience in Safety-Critical Domains: The Example of Health Care. Human Factors. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720819887575.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Johan F. Hoorn und Sonja D. Winter. 2018. Here Comes the Bad News: Doctor Robot Taking Over. International Journal of Social Robotics 10, 4, 519-535. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0455-2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Daniel Johnson und John Gardner. 2007. The media equation and team formation: Further evidence for experience as a moderator. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 2, 111-124. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.08.007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Roselyn J. Lee-Won, Yeon Kyoung Joo, und Sung Gwan Park. 2020. Media Equation. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology, 1-10. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. John Lee, Christopher Wickens, Yili Liu, und Linda Boyle. 2017. Designing for People: An introduction to human factors engineering. SC: CreateSpace. Charleston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ann Light. 2006. Adding method to meaning: A technique for exploring peoples' experience with technology. Behaviour & Information Technology 25, 2, 175-187. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290500331172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. John Mccarthy und Peter Wright. 2005. Putting ‘felt-life’ at the centre of human–computer interaction (HCI). Cognition, Technology & Work 7, 4, 262-271. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10111-005-0011-y.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Clifford Nass, B. J. Fogg, und Youngme Moon. 1996. Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45, 6, 669-678. https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Clifford Nass und Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56, 1, 81-103. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Clifford Nass, Byron Reeves, und Glenn Leshner. 1996. Technology and Roles: A Tale of Two TVs 46, 2, 121-128. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01477.x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, und Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 72–78, https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. John E. Newhagen und Byron Reeves. 1992. The evening's bad news: Effects of compelling negative television news images on memory Blackwell Publishing. United Kingdom, 25-41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00776.x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomas O'neill, Nathan Mcneese, Amy Barron, und Beau Schelble. Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature 0, 0, 0018720820960865. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Byron Reeves und Clifford Ivar Nass. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY, US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Paula Savioja, Marja Liinasuo, und Hanna Koskinen. 2014. User experience: does it matter in complex systems? Cognition, Technology & Work 16, 4 (November 2014), 429-449. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10111-013-0271-x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. David A. Spencer. 2018. Fear and hope in an age of mass automation: debating the future of work 33, 1, 1-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ryosuke Yokoi, Yoko Eguchi, Takanori Fujita, und Kazuya Nakayachi. 2021. Artificial Intelligence Is Trusted Less than a Doctor in Medical Treatment Decisions: Influence of Perceived Care and Value Similarity. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37, 10, 981-990. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1861763.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. “It's okay, honey… shhh…” - The Media Equation and Computers-Are-Social-Actors-Hypothesis in Acute Care: “Ist ja gut, Schätzelein… shhh…” - Die Media Equation und Computers-Are-Social-Actors-Hypothese in der Akutmedizin

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      MuC '21: Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2021
      September 2021
      613 pages
      ISBN:9781450386456
      DOI:10.1145/3473856

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 September 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format