In this article, the authors study how computer feedback affects self-appraisals and reflected-appraisals. The literature suggests that social feedback can significantly alter a subject's perception of performance. That is, how the people in your environment rate your performance of a task influences your opinion of how well you performed that task. The authors formed the following three theories about this aspect of human-computer interaction:

The authors tested a group of 158 students, using a computer program that examined psychic ability. The group was randomly separated into four sub-groups:

The results of each test was predetermined to generate positive or negative feedback, as appropriate. Each student filled out a form at the end of the test, rating the human/machine qualities of the test, how the computer rated their performance, and how they would rate their performance. The authors examined the responses based on gender, interface style, and feedback type.

The results of this study strongly supported the first hypothesis (the effect of positive or negative feedback), but did not support the second or third hypotheses (the effect of human-like or machine-like interfaces). The authors suggest that the failure of the experiment to support two of the hypotheses stems from a failure with the interface - that is, that the human-like interface was insufficiently human. They encourage further studies in this area, using more advanced technology to simulate human social interactions.

This article was reasonably thorough in laying a background for the experiment and designing the questions with consideration of the audience. The use of a psychic test was designed to test a realm unfamiliar to the subjects and thus without preconceptions. Additionally, the examination of the results was sound and complete.

However, in the conclusions, the authors do not carefully examine the potential societal communication implications of their experiment. The role of social interaction cannot be constrained to the form of communication (human-like vs. machine-like), but must include more environmental factors, such as the social status of the communicator. In their background literature, the authors begin to introduce this aspect, citing a study involving a coach/student exchange (Felson, 1981), but they do not further explore how to simulate this aspect, or other social aspects, to improve their interface.

The experimental methodology used by the authors is a good example of a human-computer interaction study. The presentation of results was reasonably clear and conclusive, if not exhaustive.

The implications brought to light by this article, but not explored by the authors, are also of interest. The idea that social interaction consists of more than the form of communication deserves further investigation.

This article has 31 references in the reference list.