Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: performance assessments of computers subsequent to "self-" or "other-" evaluations

We show that individuals use inappropriate social rules in assessing machine behavior. Explanations of ignorance and individuals' views of machines as proxies for humans are shown to be inadequate; instead, individuals' responses to technology are shown to be inconsistent with their espoused beliefs. In two laboratory studies, computer-literate college students used computers for tutoring and testing. The first study (n = 22) demonstrates that subjects using a computer that praised itself believed that it was more helpful, contributed more to the subject's test score, and was more responsive than did subjects using a computer that criticized itself, although the tutoring and testing sessions were identical. In the second study (n = 44), the praise or criticism came from either the computer that did the tutoring or a different computer. Subjects responded as if they attributed a "self" and self-focused attributions (termed "ethopoeia") to the computers. Specifically, subjects responses followed the rules "other-praise is more valid and friendlier than self-praise", "self-criticism is friendlier than other-criticism", and "criticizers are smarter than praisers" to evaluate the computers, although the subjects claimed to believe that these rules should not be applied to computers.