1. Clifford Nass, B.J. Fogg, Youngme Moon http://www.stanford.edu/group/commdept/oldstuff/srct_pages/Affili ation_conformity.html

2.  The perception of group membership that guides all other conformity processes  The effects of social identification are pervasive and powerful. (minimal group paradigm)

3.  The findings in classic and recent research indicate that people with group social identity  (1) perceive themselves to be more similar to each other  (2) are more likely to act cooperatively  (3) feel a stronger need to agree with group opinion  (4) perceive in-group messages to be of higher quality and…  (5) conform more in both behavior and attitude

4.  Social identification is a powerful cue but what if one of the participants is a computer?  Nass, Steuer & Tauber, 1994 have demonstrated that a number of social rules and psychological processes which guide human-human interaction apply equally to human-computer interaction

5.  (1) Can researchers manipulate affiliation (create a sense of teamwork or groupfulness) between humans and computers? and  (2) Will the effects of human-computer affiliation be similar to the documented effects of human-human affiliation? Independent Variable (IV): group identity - affiliation and interdependence Dependent Variable (DV): Behavioral Conformity

6. Twenty-eight college students volunteered to participate in an experiment involving information presented on computers.  Equal numbers of men and women were in each condition.  All subjects had extensive word processing experience and were familiar with computers in general.

7.  Two between-subjects conditions: team and individual. 1. Team condition.  To manipulate the IV "teamness" (presence of affiliation), "team" subjects were told that they were part of the "blue team" and that they would interact with a teammate called the "blue computer."  To manipulate the IV interdependence each "team" participant was told that he or she would be evaluated as a team with the computer.

8. Individual condition. Each "individual" participant (absence of affiliation) interacted with a computer but would be working as an individual--a "blue individual" working with a "green computer." “Individual" subjects were told that they would be evaluated on the basis of their individual work alone.  In both conditions it was explained that the computer did not necessarily have all the requisite information.

9. 1. Initial Ranking. After arriving at the laboratory, pps were told that they would work on a task called the "Desert Survival Problem" (Lafferty & Eady, 1974). 2. The subjects read a short description of the survival situation and then ranked 12 items in order of importance for survival in the desert. 3. Affiliation Assignment. Once subjects completed their initial ranking of items, the experimenter brought them into a room with various computers. 4. The pps were informed that they would now have a chance to interact with a certain computer about each of the 12 items. At this point, the subjects were told either (1) they were working as a team with the computer or (2) they were working as an individual.

10. 5. Ranking Exchange. Subjects entered their ranking of items onto their own screen and wrote down the rankings from the computer they would be interacting with. Unknown to the subjects, the computer's rankings were systematically related to each subject's ranking. For example, if a subject ranked an item as number 2, the computer would automatically rank that item as number 5 and so on. Because the computer's ranking depended entirely on the subject's ranking, the subject's and the computer's rankings were equally dissimilar in each condition.

11. 6. Interaction. The experimenter then guided the subjects through a practice interaction with the computer, in which the subjects exchanged information about a practice desert survival item. Subjects typed their ideas into what was designated as their own screen. The computer then presented its information about each item on a different screen. For example, when the flashlight was the survival item under discussion, the text from the computer would read, "The flashlight is the only reliable source of signaling after dark. This is a very important item for survival." During the experiment, subjects exchanged information with the computer on each of the 12 desert survival items. The computer presented identical information in both conditions.

12. 7. Dependent Variable After the subjects completed the interaction with the computer, they made a final ranking of the 12 desert survival items. The DV was how much the subjects conformed to the information from the computer by measuring how close their final rankings were to the rankings offered by the computer. 8. Finally, subjects filled out two questionnaires with 10- point Likert scales. 7. The first questionnaire assessed each subject's response to the interaction with the computer. 8. The second one assessed each subject's response to the computer. These measures determined the subjects' attitudes toward the interaction and the computer itself.

13.  Affiliation was an index of two items: thinking of self as part of a group and thinking of self as a partner with the computer  Similarity was an index of 6 items: Perceived similarity of…  Approach, suggestions, interaction style, initial rankings, final ranking to the computer's initial ranking, and final rankings to the computer's hypothetical final ranking.

14.  Cooperation was an index of three items: cooperation with the computer, desire to reach agreement with the computer, and responsiveness to the computer's suggestions.  Openness to influence was an index of eight items: openness to influence from the computer, receptivity to the computer's suggestions, dependence on the computer's suggestions, acceptance of the computer's advice, agreement with the computer, responsiveness to the computer's suggestions, trust in the computer's information, and desire to reach agreement with the computer  Perceived information quality was an index of three items: relevance of the computer's information, helpfulness of the computer's information, and insightfulness of the computer's information.

15.  Independent Variable (IV): group identity - affiliation and interdependence  Dependent Variable (DV): Behavioral Conformity  How did they measure Behavioral Conformity?  The distance between the computer's suggested ranking and the subject's final ranking.

16.  To be affiliated with the computer more than individual subjects did  To be more similar to the computer than did the individual subjects  As more cooperative than did individual subjects  To be more open to influence from the computer than were the individual subjects

17.  Information to be of higher quality than did individual pps  Information to be friendlier than did individual pps Finally, team pps conformed their rankings more to the position advocated by the computer than did individual subjects

18.  This study demonstrates the pervasiveness and power of social identity.  Manipulating human affiliation with a computer is surprisingly easy: simply tell subjects  (1) that they are part of a team with a computer and  (2) that they will be evaluated as a team.

19.  humans who work in teams with computers display the same sorts of attitudes and behaviors as when working in teams with other humans.  In sum, compared to individual subject, team subjects saw themselves  as more similar to the computer,  saw themselves as more cooperative,  were more open to influence,  thought the computer's information was of higher quality, and  found the computer's information to be friendlier.

20.  This experiment shows that subjects behave differently because of perceptions of affiliation with a computer -- team subjects are more likely to conform to the computer's suggestions.  Although similar conformity attitudes and behaviors have been demonstrated ever since Sherif (1936), such effects have never been observed when the group consisted solely of a person and a computer--a dyad that presents the sparsest form of social interaction possible.