ABSTRACT
This study examines the effects of interface adaptation on user performance in HCI and CMC. No studies to date have explored the psychological effects of a combination of software performance monitoring and adaptation. This combination is the focus of the present study. Two competing possible effects of adaptive interfaces are presented: 1) Social facilitation, according to which users with high task confidence should perform better, and users with low task confidence should perform less well because their performance is monitored by the interface; and 2) "choking", according to which users with high task confidence should perform less well, and users with low task confidence should perform better because the interface adapts to their performance. A 2 (adaptive vs. non-adaptive) x 2 (high user task confidence vs. low task confidence) x 2 (HCI vs. CMC) laboratory experiment was conducted. Results indicate that for CMC, the social facilitation explanation holds true, while results for HCI were consistent with the "choking" explanation. Implications for the theory and design of adaptive interfaces are discussed
- Aiello, J. & Kolb, K. Electronic performance monitoring and social context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7 (1993), 537--548.Google Scholar
- Aiello, J. & Svec, C. Computer monitoring of work performance: Extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23 (1993), 537--548.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barnard, J.J. Using Iitem Response Theory for Test Construction. Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa, 1990.Google Scholar
- Cooper, A. The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. SAMS Macmillan Computer Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- De Ayala, R.J., Dodd, B.G., Koch, W.R. A simulation and comparison of flexilevel and Bayesian computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement 27 (1990), 227--229.Google ScholarCross Ref
- De Beer, M. & Visser, D. Comparability of paper and pencil and computerized versions of the GSAT. South African Journal of Psychology 1 (1998), 37--42.Google Scholar
- Etzioni O. & Weld, D. A softbot-based interface to the Internet, in: Huhns, M.N., & Singh, M.P. (eds.) Readings in Agents. Morgan Kauffman Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Geen, R.G. Evaluation apprehension and social facilitation: A reply to Sanders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 17 (1981), 252--256.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Graydon, J., et al. The effects of personality on social facilitation whilst performing a sports related task. Journal of Personal and Individual Differences 19, 2 (1995), 265--267.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Griffith, T.L. Monitoring and performance: A comparison of computer and supervisor monitoring. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 (1993), 549--572.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guerin, B. Mere presence effects in humans: A review. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 22 (1986), 38--77.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guerin, B, & Innes, J. Social facilitation and social monitoring: A new look at Zajonc's mere presence hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology 21 (1982), 7--18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harkins, S. Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23 (1987), 1--18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henly, S., Klebe, K.J., McBride, J.R. & Cudeck, R. Adaptive and conventional versions of the DAT: the first complete test battery comparison. Applied Psychological Measurement 13 (1989), 363--371.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hindus, D., Ackerman, M.S., Mainwaring, S. & Starr, B. Thunderwire: A field study of an audio-only media space, in Proceedings of CSCW '96 (November 1996), ACM Press, 238--247. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huhns, M.N., & Singh, M.P. (eds.). Readings in Agents. Morgan Kauffman Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Isbister, K., & Layton, T. Agents: What (or who) are they?, in Nielsen, J. (ed.) Advances in Human-Computer Interaction (Norwood, N.J, 1995), Ablex Publishing Corporation, 67--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Langley, P. User modeling in adaptive interfaces, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on User Modeling (Banff, Alberta, 1997), Springer, 357--370. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lashkari, Y. et al. Collaborative interface agents. In: Huhns, M.N., & Singh, M.P. (eds.). Readings in Agents. Morgan Kauffman Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin, S. & Knight, J.M. Social facilitation effects resulting from locus of control using human and computer experimenters. Computers in Human Behavior 1 (1986), 123--130.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Minsky, M. A conversation with Marvin Minsky. Communications of the ACM 7 (1994), 23--29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Picard, R. Does HAL cry digital tears: Emotions and computers, in Stork, D.G. (ed.) HAL's Legacy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.Google Scholar
- Reeves, B. and Nass, C. The Media Equation. How People treat Computers, Television, and New Media like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rich, C. & Sidner, C. Collagen: When agents collaborate with people. In: Huhns, M.N., & Singh, M.P. (eds.). Readings in Agents. Morgan Kauffman Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rocklin, T.R., et al. Effects and underlying mechanisms of self-adapted testing. Journal of Educational Psychology 87, 1 (1995), 103--116.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roos, L., Wise, S.L., & Plake, B. The role of item feedback in self adapted testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement 57, 1 (1997), 85--98.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sanders, G. Driven by distraction: An integrative review of social facilitation theory and research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 17 (1981), 227--251.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Selker, T. Coach: A teaching agent that learns. Communications of the ACM 7 (1994) 2--12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Smith, M.J., et al. Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics 23 (1992), 17--27.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stanton, J. & Barnes-Farrell, J. Effects of electronic performance monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology 6 (1996), 738--745.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Trumbly, J.E., Arnett, K.P., & Johnson, P.C. Productivity gains via an adaptive user interface. Journal of Human-Computer Studies 40 (1994), 63--81. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Westin, A. Two key factors that belong in a macroergonomic analysis of electronic monitoring. Applied Ergonomics 23 (1992), 35--42.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Winograd, T. Profile: Microsoft Bob, in: Winograd, T. (ed.). Bringing Design to Software. ACM Press, New York, 1996. Google Scholar
- Zajonc, R. Social facilitation. Science 149 (1965), 269--275.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
Adaptive testing: effects on user performance
Recommendations
Intelligent gaze-added interfaces
CHI '00: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsWe discuss a novel type of interface, the intelligent gaze-added interface, and describe the design and evaluation of a sample gaze-added operating-system interface. Gaze-added interfaces, like current gaze-based systems, allow users to execute commands ...
Intelligent user interfaces
IUI '93: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Intelligent user interfacesEstimating confidence interval of software reliability with adaptive testing strategy
We propose a new adaptive testing strategy for software reliability assessment.Bayesian inference and quadratic loss function are adopted for test case selection.Both estimator variance and width of confidence interval can be minimized.The computational ...
Comments