How'm I doing?

Discusses the findings of psychologist Kathryn Aikin's research concerning the negative reaction of human subjects to criticism from a computer. Critique of subjects' performance in a game that tested reasoning skills.

By PT Staff, published on May 01, 1996

FEEDBACK

It sounds great in theory. Few of us enjoy having to tell others when they haven't done very well. So why not let a computer analyze a person's performances -- and provide the potentially awkward critique?

Bad idea, warns Penn State psychologist Kathryn Aikin, Ph.D. Sure, we use computers to train everyone from secretaries to fighter pilots. But when it comes to giving feedback, there may be no substitute for the human touch.

So learned Aikin when she sent college students on-line criticism of their performance in a game that tested reasoning skills. While all of the feedback was randomly generated, Aikin told half of the subjects that the computer itself was critiquing their efforts. The rest believed Aikin was personally monitoring their performance from another room and providing feedback on-line.

Because computers don't play favorites or boot up on the wrong side of the bed, Aikin expected that people would accept criticism more readily when generated by machine. "They wouldn't be able to say, 'Well, the computer is just having a bad day. It's not my fault.'"

It turned out, though, that students were less likely to believe failure feedback when it came from a computer. And cybercriticism increased the odds that students would attribute mediocre performance to external factors, like bad lighting, rather than their own ability.

Aiken says there are lessons here that parents, teachers, and employers should keep in mind. "Using a computer to teach someone is cheap. But if you learn the task less well because you don't believe feedback from the computer, then it's not cost effective."

PHOTO (COLOR)