Browse Books

Reviewer: Clifford Nass

The review of <__?__Pub Fmt italic>The Media Equation<__?__Pub Fmt /italic> (<__?__Pub Fmt italic>Computing Reviews,<__?__Pub Fmt /italic> Vol. <__?__Pub Fmt bold>38,<__?__Pub Fmt /bold> No. 7 (July 1997), pp. 349–350) suggested that we write a rebuttal; we welcome the opportunity. The reviewer's (Lou Lucke's) self-described ignorance of the social sciences leads him to make a number of false statements: (a) Lucke said all of the results in the book were obvious. This is false. Lucke confuses a systematic, empirical demonstration of the breadth and depth of social and natural responses to computers and other media (our book) with the vacuous statement “people have been treating inanimate objects like other people since time immemorial.” If the findings were so obvious, why is it that in every one of our 35 experiments, subjects denied exhibiting the behavior we demonstrate__?__ And the same is true for the scientists that have reviewed the research. Obvious findings that provide no new perspective are not published in academic journals, as were virtually all of the studies we reported. (b) Lucke said that the experiments we reported had no controls. On the contrary, each experiment had extremely strong experimental controls, as demanded by the standards of the social science journals in which the reports are published. (c) Lucke said it was inappropriate for us to make assumptions about how people behave based on “well-established” research. We disagree. To do research by extending well-established findings is at the very heart of good science, not bad science as Lucke contends. (d) Lucke said that the references were not associated with particular sentences. This is false: each reference is clearly and unambiguously linked to a particular sentence in the book. (e) Lucke said that we “convinced” Bill Gates to praise our book (an excerpt of which was included on the book jacket). This statement is inappropriate and false. Lucke concluded with a reference to the now-defunct Golden Fleece Award. This award was abolished when it became apparent that it was based on a “know-nothing” view of science that was overly simplistic and misleading. Lucke's review suffers from the same problem.

Reviewer: Allan Louis Lucke

This is not a great book. In fact, if you are like me, it might be difficult to force yourself to read a chapter or two each night just to get through it. Having been trained in physics, geology, and computers, I am undoubtedly biased and without proper respect for the social sciences, particularly behavioral science. Consequently, the authors will probably feel obliged to write a rebuttal, and I urge them to do so. Twenty-one of the 23 chapters in this book take a known, basic human response to a person-to-person social interaction and then substitute “media” for one of the persons, where the medium is either a computer or television (in most cases a computer) or, rarely, a movie. The other two chapters are an introduction and a conclusion. In each of the 21 central chapters, the authors present some preliminary information about the social reaction under scrutiny, followed by some devised rules that will be true if the normal person-to-person social reaction occurs when a human is interacting with a computer or television rather than with another human being. They then present an “experiment” that presumably will test the validity of their rules. As you might expect, the rules are inevitably and magnificently supported by the results of the experiment. The whole goal of this tome is to convince you that people treat their computers and televisions as if they were people. What is so mind-bending about such a conclusion People have been treating inanimate objects like other people since time immemorial. Ever since children have played with dolls and toy soldiers, they have treated them like people. Dont you treat your car or boat or airplane as if it were conscious…at least sometimes Havent people prayed to idols, talked to radios, and danced with empty suits or dresses without being perceived as insane Is it really so amazing that people respond positively to a computer that appears to respond politely to them, as the first chapters “experiment” demonstrates The other chapters are boringly similar. Interpersonal distance, flattery, judging others, various personality characteristics, emotional responses, and a number of other social and psychological interactions are all tested in such a way that the outcome of the test can do nothing other than prove that a medium will be treated as a person. What is astonishing is that Bill Gates was convinced to write the following, as quoted from the dust jacket: Nass and Reeves have spent the last decade working in the area of social responses to technology. We have brought them into our team, and they have shown us some amazing things. The most exasperating aspect of the entire book is that none of the “experiments” have any controls. The authors seem to think that because the human-to-human social responses are so well known and accepted, quoting authorities will suffice in place of carefully constructed experimental controls. This is not good science. Also, the references are grouped together in a separate chapter. Each reference points back to chapter and page, rather than having the customary superscript number embedded in the text that points forward to the bibliographic reference. Even footnoting would have been better. There is an author index, which appears to be of no use; it simply cites the chapter to which the reference points. There is no general index. To the authors credit, they write engaging prose and have avoided technical terms. They do not try to impress the reader with tables and graphs of stale statistics concerning their experiments. In fact, there isnt a single table or illustration in the book. The cartoon on the dust cover by Jeff Moores is quite appropriate. T he book is well laid out and there seem to be no typos or grammatical errors. The purpose of the book seems to have been to present serious research to nonscientists. Perusing the introduction and conclusion would probably suffice for the general lay reader. I recommend this book to anyone in search of a candidate for a Golden Fleece type of award.