1 / 37

The Effect of Gender and Method of Persuasion on Random Processes

The Effect of Gender and Method of Persuasion on Random Processes. May 5, 2005 PSY/ORFE 322. Purpose. To determine if an operator’s method of persuasion (coaxing vs commanding) can affect the ‘time of flight’ of a robot controlled by a Random Event Generator (REG)

isabel
Télécharger la présentation

The Effect of Gender and Method of Persuasion on Random Processes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effect of Gender and Method of Persuasion on Random Processes May 5, 2005 PSY/ORFE 322

  2. Purpose • To determine if an operator’s method of persuasion (coaxing vs commanding) can affect the ‘time of flight’ of a robot controlled by a Random Event Generator (REG) • To determine if the gender of the operator has any effect on his/her performance when using these two methods of persuasion

  3. Coax vs Command • Coax: to draw, gain, or persuade by means of gentle urging or flattery • Command: to direct authoritatively or order Source: Webster’s Dictionary

  4. Peoc’h, Rene (1986) • Newly hatched chicks were conditioned to adopt an REG controlled robot as their mother. • The robot was then allowed to operate within a closed space, adjacent to a cage, with its motion tracked. • The robot was run both in the presence of the chicks, and in the presence of an empty cage.

  5. Peoc’h, Rene (1986) • In the presence of the chicks, the robot spent 2.5 times as much time on the side nearest to the cage

  6. Brenda J. Dunne et. al. (1998) • According to REG studies conducted between 1979 and 1993, the correlation of mean shifts with intention tends to be much stronger in males than females. • The low-intention results of females tend to be opposite of intention

  7. R. G. Jahn et. al. (1997) • Little systematic assessment of the effectiveness of a particular operator strategy has been made • Based on limited data, it appears that the most successful operators form bonds with the devices and relate to them in anthropomorphic terms

  8. Implications • Is it possible that an ‘anthropomorphic bond’ could be formed between operator and device through the use of a commanding or coaxing method of persuasion? • Could men be more successful at using the ‘command’ method, traditionally associated with masculinity? • Likewise, could women be more successful at using the traditionally feminine ‘coax’ method?

  9. Hypotheses • It is thought that the ‘command’ method of persuasion will be more effective at altering the ‘time of flight’ of the REG controlled robot. • Similarly, it is thought that men will be more effective in their use of the ‘command’ method.

  10. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment)

  11. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female

  12. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female • Operators left alone to perform experiment

  13. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female • Operators left alone to perform experiment • Each operator: 40 trials (20 sets)

  14. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female • Operators left alone to perform experiment • Each operator: 40 trials (20 sets) • Computers! Robots! Volition!

  15. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female • Operators left alone to perform experiment • Each operator: 40 trials (20 sets) • Computers! Robots! Volition! • Each set = 1 ‘Long’ and 1 ‘Short’ run

  16. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female • Operators left alone to perform experiment • Each operator: 40 trials (20 sets) • Computers! Robots! Volition! • Each set = 1 ‘Long’ and 1 ‘Short’ run • 1st set: Coaxing, 2nd set: Commanding…

  17. COMMANDING the Frog Robot

  18. COMMANDING the Frog Robot (this is a simulation)

  19. Coaxing the Frog Robot

  20. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female • Operators left alone to perform experiment • Each operator: 40 trials (20 sets) • Computers! Robots! Volition! • Each set = 1 ‘Long’ and 1 ‘Short’ run • 1st set: Coaxing, 2nd set: Commanding… • Each trial: appx. 10sec – 4min

  21. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female • Operators left alone to perform experiment • Each operator: 40 trials (20 sets) • Computers! Robots! Volition! • Each set = 1 ‘Long’ and 1 ‘Short’ run • 1st set: Coaxing, 2nd set: Commanding… • Each trial: appx. 10sec – 4min • No baseline trials

  22. Procedure(Our Controlled Experiment) • 6 operators total: 3 male, 3 female • Operators left alone to perform experiment • Each operator: 40 trials (20 sets) • Computers! Robots! Volition! • Each set = 1 ‘Long’ and 1 ‘Short’ run • 1st set: Coaxing, 2nd set: Commanding… • Each trial: appx. 10sec – 4min • No baseline trials • Statistics…

  23. HYPOTHESIS 1 The ‘command’ method of persuasion will be more effective than the ‘coax’ method at altering the ‘time of flight’ of the REG controlled robot.

  24. DATA • Mean time for SHORT RUN using COAX = 49.84 sec • Mean time for SHORT RUN using COM: = 55.54 sec • Mean time for LONG RUN using COAX: = 51.02 sec • Mean time for LONG RUN using COM: = 54.67 sec

  25. DATA • St.dev. for SHORT RUN using COAX = 27.02 sec • St.dev. for SHORT RUN using COM: = 38.61 sec • St.dev. for LONG RUN using COAX: = 41.22 sec • St.dev. for LONG RUN using COM: = 31.17 sec

  26. DATA

  27. TEST Is meanlong-com – meanlong-coax > 0? Using the two-sample t test, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude with a high degree of confidence (95%) that commanding was more effective than coaxing.

  28. HYPOTHESIS 2 Men will be more effective than women in their use of the ‘command’ method.

  29. DATA • Mean time for MEN for SHORT RUN using COM = 54.30 sec • Mean time for WOMEN for SHORT RUN using COM = 56.57 sec • Mean time for MEN for LONG RUN using COM = 56.77 sec • Mean time for WOMEN for LONG RUN using COM = 52.84 sec

  30. DATA • St.dev. for MEN for SHORT RUN using COM = 47.76 sec • St.dev. for WOMEN for SHORT RUN using COM = 29.77 sec • St.dev. for MEN for LONG RUN using COM = 38.33 sec • St.dev. for WOMEN for LONG RUN using COM = 28.84 sec

  31. DATA

  32. TEST Is meanlong-men – meanlong-women > 0? Using the two-sample t test, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude with a high degree of confidence (95%) that men were more effective than women with the command method.

  33. HYPOTHESIS 3 Women will be more effective than men in their use of the ‘coax’ method.

  34. DATA • Mean time for WOMEN for SHORT RUN using COAX = 53.58 sec • Mean time for MEN for SHORT RUN using COAX = 45.36 sec • Mean time for WOMEN for LONG RUN using COAX = 42.37 sec • Mean time for MEN for LONG RUN using COAX = 61.39 sec

  35. DATA • St.dev. for WOMEN for SHORT RUN using COAX = 27.06 sec • St.dev. for MEN for SHORT RUN using COAX = 26.83 sec • St.dev. for WOMEN for LONG RUN using COAX = 21.58 sec • St.dev. for MEN for LONG RUN using COAX = 55.26 sec

  36. DATA

  37. CONCLUSION

More Related