We are witnessing “one of the most profound changes in communication since the invention of cuneiform and the clay tablet -- the technology which first made it possible to imprint symbols of human vocal messages and to transport them physically from sender to receiver” (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1986). This change in communication is not gradual -- it is exponential. As we race toward the Technological Singularity, the term “mass communication” has become a hangover buzzword. Mass Communication no longer exists under the traditional definition except during major events such as 9/11 and the Superbowl. Media effects have become much more audience-member-specific and no longer can be assessed in terms of effects on the masses as easily as they were when we had fewer media options. Our interactions with mediated people and events are primarily imaginative and deeply personal. It is difficult to assume that a message will have a uniform effect on the aggregate. For these reasons, “mediated communication” may better describe our individual interactions with messages coming to us through traditional mass-media.
This
can be explained as a result of a larger variety of media outlets and
the human tendency toward selectivity. As for the role of selectivity,
research has uncovered many motivations: reinforcing beliefs, especially
voting intentions (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1968),
alleviating cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), mood management
through TV viewing choices (Bryant & Zillmann, 1984), various
political orientations such as knowledge and partisanship (Johnson,
Bichard, & Zhang, 2009) to name but a few. Work by Freedman and
Sears (1965) suggested other plausible explanations for selective
exposure phenomena, namely information utility and contextual/lifestyle
circumstances that predispose people to exposure to some types of
messages. For example, smokers tend to see more cigarette ads than
non-smokers -- not because they were looking to advertisements to
alleviate dissonance regarding their habit, but because points of
cigarette purchases often have advertisements for cigarettes. Our
lifestyles invariably lead to exposure to information that supports
them. As a result of Freedman & Sears’ (1965) work, the theory’s
development in regard to mass media was temporarily slowed. However,
cable diffused in the 1980s followed by the Internet in the 1990s,
effectively creating an explosion of media choices. As Potter (2004)
tells us,
We
live in an environment that is far different than any environment
humans have ever experienced, and the environment changes at an
ever-increasing pace. This is due to the accelerating generation of
information, the sharing of that information through an increasing
number of media channels, and the heavy traffic of media vehicles
traversing those channels. Messages are being delivered to everyone,
everywhere, constantly, We are all saturated with information (p.7).
Selective exposure again became a theory of interest for explaining media choices in the early part of the twentieth century.
Adding
to the complexity of the study of mediated communication is the
existence of artificial intelligence (AI). Once a sci-fi staple made
famous by HAL 9000, C3PO, and even Arnold Schwarzenegger, it is now
something we deal with every day. Increasingly AI is becoming the
go-between, inhabiting the world between us and the information we seek.
A simple Google search puts AI to service. More importantly, it is
becoming “smarter” and better-able to respond to us. As authors such as
Ray Kurzwweil (FIND A CITE) argue, it is becoming smarter and faster exponentially.
Several
authors have argued that search engines not only alters brain function
(Small, Moody, Siddarth, & Bookheimer, 2009), but might make us
stupid (Carr, 2008)! Others argue human, rather than technological
determinism, and claim the Internet exists as a result of who we are.
“Is stupid making us Google?” (Bowman, 2008); Is the Internet just
another product of larger currents in civilization, such as a human
tendency toward formation of networks (Castells, 2004)? Considering
media dependency theory (Ball-Rokeach & Defleur, 1976) it is likely
that as we continue to adjust to the company of AI we will grow more
dependent upon it to accomplish many common tasks.
As
we become more dependent on AI, it becomes even more necessary to
develop a framework for understanding how humans communicate with it.
Somewhere in the middle ground between psychology, interpersonal
communication, and mass communication is the study of parasociability.
Originally, parasocial research dealt with exploring our relationships
with television personalities (personae), and parasocial interaction and
relationships were defined as “one-sided.” Through imaginative
processes we tend to make parasocial relationships two-sided and use
them for such purposes as gaining self-understanding and keeping up with
the personae, much as we do in our imagined interaction with real
people (Madison & Porter, 2012). Parasocial interaction and
relationships were originally described as one-sided interaction (Horton
& Wohl, 1956). An on-screen personae communicates a message or
behaves in a certain way, and the audience responds in a manner that
suggests we are responding to a real person. Such interaction might be
yelling at football players on television, recoiling in disgust at a
horror movie, or even laughing in response to a joke. This demonstrates
that a viewer, by watching television, plays a role that is different
from other roles they may play in other areas of life.
Technology
has changed parasociability by opening up relationships with mediated
personae and delivering to us countless interactivity options. With the
advent of social media, parasociability is better-described as
two-sided. Fans of actors, athletes, and politicians have the
opportunity to actually receive responses from personae. With the
advancement of video game complexity and narratives, parasocial
interaction is clearly two-sided. Video game designers purposely place
parasocial cues in video games. A narrator may, as Horton & Wohl
(1956) described, coach a viewer through a relationship using gestures,
body language, and carefully-chosen scripts. This trend in video gaming
is likely to continue (Bopp, 2006).
Most
people are not yet ready to accept AI as an actual human being, but we
certainly have 2-sided interaction with everything we do with AI. Many
representations of NPCs in video games might be described in the same
way as other fictionalized characters: more like “good neighbors” than
close friends of relatives (De Backer, Nelissen, Vyncke, Braeckman,
& McAndrew, 2007).
The
study of parasociability provides a useful basis for understanding our
relationships with AI. It’s not quite a person, but we tend to interact
with it as if it were a real person. Imagined interaction theory, which
has largely been studied through a functionalist perspective (i.e.
Honeycutt, 2003, 2010) and has specific pertinence to the study of
human-AI-Interaction.
Before
exploring AI through a parasocial lens, it is necessary to define it.
What is it? Is it a practical tool? Is it a personality? Is it just a
set of algorithms that take code, process it, and create new code? Are
we ourselves anything more than just a set of algorithms that take code,
process it, and create new code – with physical features?
A
question that mass communication researchers should be asking is “How
does AI as a middleman change the influence of information – journalism,
public relations, advertising, political communication – on
individuals?”
Arguably,
using parasociability to negotiate with AI began with video games. I
myself recall attributing human characteristics to various human, alien,
animal, and robotic representations of opponents (Non-Playing
Characters; NPCs) against whom I battled, mesmerized for hours on end.
The Atari 2600 and original Nintendo brought these representations into
my home and as a child and later a teenager found myself learning to
negotiate with (read: destroy) them. Several joysticks met their fates
as I slammed them down in frustrated parasocial interactions.
Video games taught me about personality. Just as different people move in different ways, so too do video game opponents. The Pitfall
alligators were harmless when their mouths were closed. When their
mouths were open they had a tendency to devour the representation of
myself in a single bite. Living in Louisiana, I quickly learned that
alligators are not completely harmless, but they are certainly less
dangerous when their mouths are closed. Later as an adolescent I learned
how not to impress women as I explored the landscape of seedy
characters in Lost Wages , a.k.a. the Land of the Lounge Lizards, and
home to “Leisure Suit” Larry Laffer. One does not approach a woman with
the words “Hey baby” and playing the role of Larry showed me exactly
why. Plus, the words “hey baby” could lead to contracting a veneral
disease.
No comments:
Post a Comment