Summary
Contents
Subject index
This revision of a classic volume presents state-of-the-art reviews of established and emerging areas of communication science and provides an intellectual compass that points the way to future theorizing about communication processes. In this Second Edition of The Handbook of Communication Science, editors Charles R. Berger, Michael E. Roloff, and David Roskos-Ewoldsen bring together an impressive array of communication scholars to explore and synthesize the varying perspectives and approaches within the dynamic field of communication science. After first addressing the methods of research and the history of the field, the Handbook then examines the levels of analysis in communication (individual to macro-social), the functions of communication (such as socialization and persuasion), and the contexts in which communication occurs (such as couples, families, organizations, and mass media). Key Features: Draws on the scholarship and expertise of leading communication scholars who explore different aspects of the field Covers all facets of communication science, from the historical and theoretical to the practical and applied Covers the latest theoretical developments in the field, as well as alternative methodologies and levels of analysis Explores key communication contexts of the 21st century, including interpersonal dimensions of health communication, the scientific investigation of marital and family communication, and computer-mediated communication Includes incisive analyses, literature reviews, bibliographies, and suggestions for future research The Handbook of Communication Science, Second Edition, is an essential reference resource for scholars, practitioners, and students. It is appropriate for upper-level undergraduate or graduate courses in Communication and Media Studies and Mass Communication.
Human-Computer Interaction
Human-Computer Interaction
Human-computer interaction (HCI) is an interdisciplinary field that investigates how people perceive and think about computer-based technologies, what human constraints affect human-machine interaction, and what factors improve usability of computer systems (Kiesler & Hinds, 2004). Although HCI research entails both “relatively discursive, qualitative, and conceptual social-behavioral science and relatively formal, quantitative, and device-oriented computer science” (Caroll, 2006, p. 431), it is in the social and behavioral science approach to HCI, or the “soft” science paradigm in Carroll's (2006) words, where we can find the unique contributions of communication scholars. Specifically, unlike management information systems (MIS) research, which treats technology as a tool to accomplish specific task goals and stresses organizational implications of various computer applications (Zhang & Galletta, 2006), HCI researchers consider the interaction between the person and the computer as a sort of conversation (Suchman, 1987) and highlight the importance of communication-related variables. For example, studies pertaining to the effects of human-like attributes of computer systems, such as personality (Moon & Nass, 1996; Nass & Lee, 2001), gender (E.-J. Lee, 2003; Nass, Moon, & Green, 1997), and group membership (Nass, Fogg, & Moon, 1996), closely follow the research tradition on source characteristics. Similarly, studies investigating how structural features of user interfaces, such as modality (Lang, Borse, Wise, & David, 2002; Sundar, 2000) and interactivity (Kalyanaraman & Sundar, 2006; Sundar & Constantin, 2004), influence individuals' cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions resemble media effects studies, especially those concerning message and channel characteristics.
In the following sections, we identify two distinct lines of HCI research in the communication field, each representing a slightly different view of the computer: computerassource and computerasinter-active medium. Sundar and Nass (2000) posited that the psychology of human-computer interaction is fundamentally premisedonthe locusofone's orientation to the computer. They suggested that when the computerisviewedasasource (CAS), people respond sociallytothe technology itself, whereas when the computeristhoughtof as a medium (CAM), users' social responses are not directed toward the technology but are affectedbyit. This chapter will summarize research findings and theoretical development within both the CAS and CAM domains and outline future directionsincommunication-oriented HCI research.
Computer as Source
As recent technological advances have augmented computer interfaces with a wide array of social cues, such as natural language use, interactivity, human social roles, speech, and anthropomorphic agents (Steuer, 1995), computers are often treated as a source of information, as opposed to a mere conduit of messages created by another human (Sundar & Nass, 2000). That is, although people are aware that computers simply generate output as programmed, they seem to become oblivious to the asocial nature of interaction and rather automatically apply the same social heuristics toward inanimate machines as they do in human-human interaction (Nass & Moon, 2000; Reeves & Nass, 1996). In this view, computers are considered to be social actors, if not assigned full humanity, which evoke in users a wide range of social attributions (Nass & Brave, 2005).
Social Responses to Communication Technology
Using a research paradigm called “Computers Are Social Actors” (CASA), Nass and colleagues (1997) have tested the applicability of various interpersonal social rules in HCI. For example, several studies have examined users' reactions to computers endowed with human-like traits. Specifically, Nass et al. found that individuals rate male-voiced computers as more proficient in technical subjects than female-voiced ones, whereas the opposite is true for topics such as love and relationships. Such gender stereotyping of the computer was replicated in E.-J. Lee's (2003) study, which operationalized computer gender in terms of gender-marked cartoon characters. Another human-like trait bestowed upon the computer is personality. Studies have shown that people not only infer a computer's personality from verbal or paraverbal cues in the interface but also respond more positively to computers whose personalities match their own (Moon & Nass, 1996; Nass & Lee, 2001). Specifically, dominant users preferred a dominant computer that revealed a high level of confidence and used more assertive language, whereas submissive users rated the interaction with a submissive computer more positively (Moon & Nass, 1996). Likewise, users were more willing to buy a book or make a bid for an auction item when the synthesized voice delivering the book reviews or product descriptions expressed a personality (extroverted vs. introverted) that was similar to their own (Nass & Lee, 2001).
...
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life -
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Read next
More like this
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches