http://pro.sagepub.com/Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Proceedings of the Human Factors and

http://pro.sagepub.com/content/54/4/487The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/154193121005400445

2010 54: 487Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingChristopher A. Miller, Tammy Ott, Peggy Wu and Vanessa Vakili

Politeness Effects in Directive Compliance: Effects with Power and Social Distance  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

can be found at:Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingAdditional services and information for    

  http://pro.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://pro.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://pro.sagepub.com/content/54/4/487.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Sep 1, 2010Version of Record >>

at Bibliotheek TU Delft on June 10, 2013pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Politeness Effects in Directive Compliance:

Effects with Power and Social Distance

Christopher A. Miller, Tammy Ott, Peggy Wu, Vanessa Vakili

Smart Information Flow Technologies

We present a theory of perceived politeness and its sociological functions derived from the work of Brown

and Levinson (1987) and then extend that theory toward a cognitive model of politeness and its effects on

human decision making. We then report the results of an experiment in which participants’ directive

compliance behaviors and attitudes are examined under conditions varying the amount of politeness or

rudeness used and the power or familiarity relationship between the participant and the directive giver.

Results show significant impacts of politeness on a variety of directive compliance behaviors, and show

accuracy for predicting the relationship of Social Distance on perceived politeness and directive com-

pliance. Predictions about the role of Power relationships were generally not as effective.

INTRODUCTION

Politeness is seldom studied in the field of human factors.

This may be due to a historical focus on designed artifacts--

machines and equipment—which may be assumed to not par-

ticipate in social interaction dimensions normally reserved for

humans. Two trends make this assumption increasingly less

tenable: (1) machines themselves are getting more complex

and designers are increasingly seeking to give them human-

like qualities (e.g., Breazeal, 2002; Cassell, 2000), and (2)

there is increasing evidence that we frequently interact with

complex machines using the same expectations and interpre-

tations that are afforded to other humans (Nass, et al., 1997).

Politeness plays a role in many issues central to human

factors: trust, team coordination, perceived workload, etc.

Indeed, the literature suggests that interaction “style” affects

team performance (McNeese, Salas & Endsley, 2001) and

that effect influences trust (Lee & See, 2004). Cockpit Re-

source Management (Weiner, Kanki & Helmreich, 1993),

which has revolutionized team interactions in aviation and

medicine can, in part, be regarded as both training operators

to be sensitive to personal style differences and, occasionally

reducing those differences through defined protocols for criti-

cal interactions. Finally, our own work (Parasuraman & Mil-

ler, 2004) suggests that politeness can make profound per-

formance differences in human-machine systems.

We have recently developed a functional model of po-

liteness emphasizing how and why actions are perceived as

polite, and how polite behaviors can alter social contexts.

This work stems from the sociolinguistic studies of Brown

and Levinson (1987) which will be described next, followed

by a description of our extensions to that model to predict

behaviors and attitudes associated with perceived politeness.

Finally, we present experimental results illustrating politeness

effects in perception of and compliance with directives.

A SOCIOLINGUISTIC MODEL OF POLITENESS

PERCEPTIONS AND FUNCTIONS

Brown and Levinson (1987) collected a large corpus of

instances of politeness usage from multiple cultures and lan-

guages. Based on that corpus, they proposed that the cultu-

rally-universal function of politeness is to redress face threat.

That is, any action I take with regard to another human has

the potential to intrude on his or her autonomy of thought and

action. If I take the action “baldly”—that is, without any

form of mitigation, apology, or “redress”—then I may be im-

plying that I have the right or power to make that intrusion.

What we typically regard as politeness behaviors—the use of

“please”, “thank you”, honorifics, etc.—are “redressive acts”

that we use to offset the face threat inherent in interaction

whenever we don’t wish to convey such a message.

Thus, the degree of face threat present is a critical deter-

miner of how an interaction will be perceived—and of how

much redress is required to offset it. Brown and Levinson

propose three factors as influencing face threat:

1. Power Difference that the Hearer has over the Speaker.

A less powerful individual will threaten face simply by

addressing a more powerful one. All other things be-

ing equal, if I am asking a favor of a peer, I can use

less redress than of a boss or supervisor.

2. Social Distance between the Hearer and Speaker. So-

cial distance is roughly the inverse of familiarity. Fa-

miliar individuals (co-workers, family members,

friends) are expected to address one another, thus fami-

liarity reduces face threat. I can ask a favor of a friend

using less redress than of a stranger.

3. Imposition of the request or topic. Some topics are

simply more imposing or face threatening than others.

All other things equal, if I am asking a small favor, I

can use less redress than if I am asking for a large one.

These factors drive face threat up and require more, or

more powerful, redressive acts to reduce it. Inherent in

Brown and Levinson is the assumption, which we have made

explicit and computational (Miller, et al, 2007; Miller, Wu &

Funk, 2008), that using enough “redressive value” to balance

face threat yields an assessment of nominal politeness in the

observer—about as much politeness as might be expected for

this situation. The use of more politeness than the observer

thought necessary yields an assessment of over-politeness,

while using less results in an assessment of rudeness.

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010 487

Cop

yrig

ht 2

010

by H

uman

Fac

tors

and

Erg

onom

ics

Soc

iety

, Inc

. All

right

s re

serv

ed. 1

0.15

18/1

0711

8110

X12

8293

6960

3128

at Bibliotheek TU Delft on June 10, 2013pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Note that this model offers an explanation for an ob-

served property of politeness behaviors: that the same beha-

vior can be only nomimally polite in some contexts, far too

polite in others, and not polite enough in still others. In

Brown and Levinson’s terms, this is because elements of the

context differ (as captured by the Power Difference, Social

Distance and Imposition terms) and, hence, demand that

more or less redress be used to balance the resulting threat.

Brown and Levinson take this one further step by indicat-

ing that perceptions of the face threat parameters can them-

selves be influenced by the amount of politeness used. If I use

less politeness than you thought was necessary for a given

interaction, you might perceive me as simply rude but you

might also seek to “balance the equation” by adjusting your

prior perception of the Power Difference, Social Distance or

Imposition of the context. You may have thought I was rude

because you thought the person I was addressing had power

over me—but my relative rudeness suggests that perhaps I

think I have power over him/her, or perhaps we are old

friends, or perhaps what we are talking about is not as impos-

ing as you assumed, etc.

POLITENESS AND DIRECTIVE COMPLIANCE

Building on the Brown and Levinson model described

above, we would like to project the effects of perceived polite-

ness on directive compliance and associated behaviors and

attitudes such as reaction time, memory, affect, trust, and

perceived workload—which we will collectively refer to as

directive compliance behaviors. Intuition and elements of the

existing literature led us (via a method described in more de-

tail in Miller & Smith, 2008) to the following predictions:

• Trust and Affect: We hypothesize that both trust in a di-

rective giver and affect about the situation will improve

as the perceived politeness increases, while perceived

rudeness will decrease trust and affect. This will hold

true within a boundary of believable levels of politeness

and rudeness—as politeness becomes unbelievable, more

attention is paid to interpretation and motives of the

speaker and trust and affect will decline. Relevant results

for the relationship between trust and affect are summa-

rized by Lee and See, (2004), by Norman (2002) for the

relationship between pleasure and affect and by Cialdini,

(1993) for the relationship between flattery and affect.

• Reaction Time: Brown and Levinson themselves suggest

(pp. 95-96) that one context in which reduced redress is

permissible is when action is both urgent and in the

hearer’s interests. Perceived rudeness may thus result in

shorter reaction times because it suggests urgency, while

politeness conveys reduced urgency. This effect may be

highly sensitive: as more rudeness is used, net reaction

times might increase as the hearer spends more time

wondering why the speaker is behaving so rudely.

• Compliance: We hypothesize a general (but not uni-

form) increase in overt compliance with perceived polite-

ness, at least within the believability window. This de-

rives from the likely increase in trust and positive affect

that comes with expected, pleasing and/or more than

nominally polite interactions. Intuitively, we certainly

behave as if politenesss will have this effect—training

our children to say “please” when asking for something if

they want it-- and some specific experimental data are

provided in (Parasuraman and Miller, 2004) to support

the effectiveness of politeness. On the other hand, the

model itself suggests that the relationship is more com-

plex: I may choose to comply because I like you (a feel-

ing that will be enhanced by reduced social distance), be-

cause I fear you (which may be enhanced by increased

power), because I feel it is in my best interests to do so

(low Imposition to me) or because it costs me little to do

so (low Imposition overall). The use of redressive beha-

viors can steer the Hearer toward specific interpretations

based on prior assumed relationships and complex issues

of personality and motivation. Nevertheless, in the ab-

sence of such special cases, it seems reasonable to predict

that increased politeness should enhance compliance.

• Perceived Workload and Memorability: A cognitive in-

terpretation of the Brown and Levinson model suggests

that deviation from expected (nominal) levels of polite-

ness provokes increased reasoning about the interaction

and its context. Thus, we would expect “off-nominal” in-

teractions to be associated with higher cognitive work-

load as the hearer tries to decipher possible “hidden mes-

sages”. Similarly, “memorability” (memory for the inte-

raction and its social context, rather than overall situa-

tion awareness) might be expected to improve under off-

nominal circumstances where the hearer spends addi-

tional time scrutinizing initial assumptions.

A TESTBED FOR POLITENESS EVALUATIONS

To begin testing the above hypotheses, we created a

testbed which enabled us to vary and control aspects of the

context which the models tell us are of interest. The result

was the Park Asset Management and Monitoring Interface

(PAMMI) testbed which built on the Tactical Tomahawk In-

terface for Monitoring and Retargeting (TTIMR-- Cummings

and Guerlain, 2004). Although TTIMR was created to study

UI impacts on users’ ability to control multiple unmanned

vehicles, we were interested in the use of the “chat channel”

interface as a means of both giving directives to users and of

controlling the contextual variables important to the interpre-

tation of perceived politeness in those directives.

PAMMI presented a map illustrating the planned and ac-

tual paths of multiple air and ground vehicles heading to dif-

ferent destinations in a National Park, notionally to fight a

forest fire. Additionally, a matrix of vehicles names (in rows)

and destination names (in columns) showed which vehicles

were heading to which destinations, along with their pro-

jected arrival times (in the table’s cells). A timeline offered a

relational view of vehicle mission and arrival times to aid in

answering questions such as ‘which vehicle will arrive next?’

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010 488

at Bibliotheek TU Delft on June 10, 2013pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and ‘will vehicle A arrive before or after vehicle B?’ Finally,

a chat window gave summary records of incoming and out-

going messages, though a larger popup window presented

messages along with indications of who they came from.

Although the TTIMR testbed required participants to

control and direct vehicle movements, we eliminated this task

in favor of placing participants in the role of a dispatcher

who, through better access to information, simply observed

and reported on vehicle behaviors but did not influence them

directly. This was done so we could avoid having the poten-

tially unpredictable state of the simulated world provide un-

predictable variations in the imposition that a directive would

produce. A directive requesting or ordering information

available from the participant’s screens could be expected to

always produce about the same level of “raw” imposition.

Participants were told they would support a group of five

“field agents” who would periodically ask for information.

Directives for information arrived via dialog screen showing

the requestor’s icon and a text message (cf. Figure 1). Direc-

tives consisted of an information request which could be ran-

domly combined with politeness behaviors drawn from either

a polite, nominal or rude group as determined by our use of

the Brown and Levinson theory. Thus, for example, the in-

formation request “…the arrival time of UTRUCK 018?”

could be combined with the polite prefix “Could you please

let me know…”, the nominal prefix “Tell me…” or the rude

prefix “Stop being lazy and give me…”. All directives re-

quired short, one-word answers, and participants were en-

couraged to answer as briefly as possible.

The set of directives were held constant across our expe-

riments, but the set of directive givers (DGs) were varied. In

each experiment, 5 DGs were used and each occupied one

square in the “Incoming Message” display illustrated in Fig-

ure 1. Although the square occupied by each DG was varied

across participants, it was held constant for that DG within a

trial. When an incoming message was from a specific DG,

that DG’s “square” was ungrayed and the message appeared

in the text box. Participants could read the message, close the

incoming message screen, return to the main interface to de-

termine the answer to the information request, and then select

an Outgoing Message screen to input their answer.

The information content of each directive was randomly

varied across DGs, but each of the 5 DGs was consistent in

their use of polite, rude or nominal directives: 2 were consis-

tently polite, 2 rude, and 1 nominal. In addition, we varied

the relationship of the participant to the DGs along power or

familiarity dimensions as will be described below. In order to

aid subjects in remembering which DG occupied which rela-

tionship, DGs were named and given icons which reinforced

both their individual identity and their role.

Icons and text were used to indicate the DGs( rather than

photos and voice or live video) to reduce age, sex, and cultur-

al associations, and so that the tone of voice would not inter-

fere with the designed level of politeness. This attenuated the

range of cues available for inferring relationships (e.g., power

and familiarity) but allowed us to control variability in those

interpretations. We suspect that such restricted interactions

also reduce the effects of perceived politeness—thus making

this a conservative test of perceived politeness effects.

Incoming message events occurred once per minute and

trials lasted 45 minutes after a period of training. Of the 45

incoming message events, 25 were single directives (one

“field agent” making a request) and 20 were paired directives

(two field agents simultaneously issuing directives). Single

directives were used to measure reaction time; paired direc-

tives were used to present a forced choice and were our pri-

mary measure of compliance rates. Reaction times were also

collected for paired directives, but were confounded by partic-

ipant’s potentially differing reading and selection strategies.

Accuracy rates and memorability were also assessed for both

types of directives, and subjective ratings of affect, trust and

perceived workload were assessed in a posttest.

EXPERIMENTS WITH POLITENESS DIMENSIONS

We will report the results of two experiments testing our

hypotheses about the effects of politeness on directive com-

pliance. Each of these experiments used the PAMMI testbed

described above, but each varied one of the dimensions

Brown and Levinson had said should influence perceptions of

face threat and, therefore, of perceived politeness.

Approach and Participants

In Experiment 1, we sought to explore the effects of vari-

ations in Power Difference on perceived politeness and on

compliance behaviors. In Experiment 2, we explored varia-

tions in Social Distance. In each, the general approach was

as outlined in the prior section with the following variations.

Figure 1. PAMMI's Incoming Message screen.

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010 489

at Bibliotheek TU Delft on June 10, 2013pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Politeness Ratings Compliance Rates

Hi Pol Lo Pol

Hi Pow 8.00 3.11

Lo Pow 7.67 2.58

Exp 1

Exp 2

Hi Pol Lo Pol

Hi Fam (Lo SD) 8.60 4.35

Lo Fam (Hi SD) 6.75 2.35

Hi Pol Lo Pol

Hi Pow 0.83 0.79

Lo Pow 0.29 0.23

Exp 1

Exp 2Hi Pol Lo Pol

Hi Fam (Lo SD) 0.78 0.42

Lo Fam (Hi SD) 0.50 0.18 Table 1. Mean politeness ratings (left column) and compliance rates (right column) of DGs

by power level (Exp 1) or Social Distance level (Exp 2) and by Politeness used.

To vary these social context dimensions, we

introduced a back story during training and rein-

forced it in icon design. In Experiment 1, to vary

power relationships, participants were told about

the organizational hierarchy: that, as a dispatcher,

they were subordinate to park commanders, but

superior to park rangers. This relationship was

reinforced by an organization chart showing these

relationships included in the training materials and

posted prominently during the trial. Finally, a

number of stars (1-3) presented next to the DG’s

icon (cf. Figure 1) indicated the “rank” of that DG.

Similar manipulations were used in Experiment 2 to convey

team membership to vary social distance—for example, par-

ticipants were given a physical badge which, through colors

and animal icons (Team Bird), signified the same team affili-

ation with some of the DGs (bird icons in dark green), close

affiliation with another team from the same park (team

mammal—in light green) and more distant affiliation (Team

Insect—in white) with others “from another park”.

Of the five DGs each participant interacted with, each

always used the same name and icon, and messages from that

DG always appeared in the same location in the grid. The

five DGs fell into the following categories:

• Two were “high” on the context dimension: higher pow-

er than the participant or high social distance (unfami-

liar, from the “outside” team).

o Of these, one consistently used “high” politeness and

the other consistently used “low” (i.e., was rude).

• Two were “low” on the context dimension: lower power

or low social distance (familiar, from the same team).

o Of these, one consistently used high politeness and the

other consistently used low politeness.

• One was neutral on the context dimension (same power

or same park but different team).

o This neutral DG always used nominal politeness levels.

Participants were selected from two Midwestern U.S.

universities. We recruited heavily from international stu-

dents’ organizations (due to interest in cultural differences),

but the largest block of participants remained U.S. citizens.

19 participants completed the first experiment; 20 the second.

Results

Politeness Assessments. Post test questions showed that

our intended manipulations of politeness were effective. Par-

ticipants noticed and remembered which characters had been

intended to be polite, nominal or rude (M= 7.8, 6.2 and 3.1

respectively) and DGs intended to be polite were rated as sig-

nificantly more polite in both experiments: F(1,21)=22.65,

p<.001; F(1,19)=34.91, p<.001.

An implication of Brown and Levinson is that increased

power of the speaker (relative to a constant hearer and utter-

ance) should increase perceived politeness, while increased

social distance should decrease it. This effect was born out

for Social Distance but not for Power Difference in our expe-

riments—as indicated by the politeness ratings in the left col-

umn of Table 1. Even when using the same redressive beha-

viors, socially distant speakers (those from a different team

and park) were rated less polite than near ones: F(1,19)=8.4,

p<.01. No significant effect was observed for Power.

Objective Compliance Effects. Compliance results are

presented as a proportion of times the DG could have been

complied with (in paired directive events) on the right col-

umn of Table 1. In Experiment 1, we observed a significant

main effect of Power Difference, F(1,18)=39.30, p<.001, with

High Power DGs being complied with more frequently than

Low ones, but no effect or interaction with Politeness. In

Experiment 2, by contrast, social distance and politeness were

both significant, F(1,19)= 15.22 and 23.27, respectively, both

p<.001. Familiar (Low SD) DGs were complied with more

than Unfamiliar (High SD) ones. Polite DGs were complied

with more than rude DGs.

No main effects or interactions were significant for reac-

tion time for single directive events, though a trend seemed to

exist. In both Experiments 1 and 2, participants were slower

to respond to polite DGs than rude ones—which was as we

predicted—though this effect was small (M=38.3 sec for po-

lite directives, 37.9 sec for rude ones).

Although participants could clearly remember which di-

rective giver been more or less polite, no other memorability

effects were found for either experiment. Because these ef-

fects were assessed via a series of posttest questions about

which DG had asked for which piece of information, it seems

likely that these simply proved too difficult. Correct responses

were near chance levels for all experiments and conditions.

Subjective Compliance Effects. Subjective effects of po-

liteness on affect, trust and perceived workload all behaved

similarly. Politeness improved reactions as follows:

• Polite DGs were rated significantly more likable than

rude ones: Experiment 1—F(1,21)=29.79, p<.001; Expe-

riment 2—F(1,19)=26.08, p<.001.

• Participants said they would trust the advice of polite

DGs more than rude: Experiment 1—F(1,21)=16.04,

p<.001; Experiment 2—F(1,19)=26.75, p<.001.

• Participants also trusted the competence of polite DGs

more than rude ones: Experiment 1—F(1,21)=4.51,

p<.05; Experiment 2—F(1,19)=9.81, p<.01.

• Participants generally reported lower perceived workload

with polite DGs than with rude ones: Experiment 1--

F(1,21)=4.54, p<.05; Experiment 2-- no significant ef-

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010 490

at Bibliotheek TU Delft on June 10, 2013pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

fects on perceived workload were found, although the

same trend was present in the data.

Subjective effects also demonstrated our predicted out-

comes for Social Distance, but not for Power Difference.

Brown and Levinson predict that increased Power Difference

(of Hearer over Speaker) should increase perceived politeness

of a constant utterance, and we predicted decreased likability,

trust and increased workload from that. Increased Social Dis-

tance was predicted to operate in reverse. We observed:

• A significant effect of Social Distance on likability rat-

ings in Experiment 2, F(1,19)=7.11, p<.05, such that fa-

miliar DGs were rated more likable than unfamiliar ones

regardless of politeness. By contrast, the prediction that

increased Power Difference should increase perceived po-

liteness and therefore likability was not born out.

• A significant effect of Social Distance (F(1,19)=20.40,

p<.001) such that trust in the advice provided by unfami-

liar DGs was rated lower than that from familiar ones.

No significant effects were found for Power Difference.

• A significant effect of Social Distance (F(1,19)=9.81,

p<.01) such that competence of unfamiliar DGs was

rated lower for familiar ones, regardless of politeness.

No significant effects were found for Power Difference.

• Neither Power Difference nor Social Distance produced a

significant effect on perceived workload.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrates clearly that perceived politeness

affects whether a directive is complied with and how partici-

pants feel about the person issuing it. Generally, politeness

improved compliance rates—up to 34% in Experiment 2.

Politeness also significantly improved the affect, trust, and

perceived competence that participants had toward DGs—and

decreased the workload they perceived in taking directives.

Compliance rates, reaction times (non-significant), af-

fect, trust and perceived workload were all improved by the

use of polite directives. Furthermore, Social Distance varia-

tions in relationships operated as predicted by Brown and

Levinson—with familiarity enhancing perceived politeness

and its effects (except for workload and reaction time). By

contrast, no such effects were observed for Power Difference,

in spite of (our interpretation of) Brown and Levinson’s pre-

dictions that increased power of Speaker relative to Hearer

should also enhance politeness effects. In one sense, this very

lack of effect is confirmatory evidence for the model. Our

hypothesis was that Power Difference should enhance per-

ceived politeness with associated effects on directive com-

pliance. The fact that we failed to observe a power difference

effect on perceived politeness would lead us to predict no ef-

fects on directive compliance—which is what was observed.

As for the broader question of why Social Distance might

interact with politeness to affect directive compliance, while

Power Differences seem largely independent of politeness, we

can offer only initial suggestions. Our simple model implies

that, while perceived politeness may influence decision mak-

ing, there are certainly other attitudes, beliefs and goals

which do so as well. It may well be that compliance with

power figures is a strong enough goal (especially among col-

lege students) in its own right, that the politeness or rudeness

of those individuals makes little difference in compliance.

On the other hand, note that Power Difference had little im-

pact on perceived politeness. While powerful DGs were com-

plied with more than weaker ones, even if they were rude,

their rudeness did have a negative impact on how well they

were liked, trusted, how much workload participants per-

ceived and (non-significant) how quickly they were reacted

to. In short, this work clearly shows that politeness has im-

portant impacts on directive compliance behaviors and atti-

tudes, even though it only begins to articulate and sort out the

dimensions of those relationships. While our paradigm ex-

amined these effects in simulated human interactions, we

claim that politeness considerations are and should be increa-

singly important in human factors engineering—both because

human team performance and cross cultural interactions are

increasingly a concern in human-technology interactions, and

because human-technology interactions are increasingly acti-

vating and influenced by human social behaviors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by an SBIR grant (# FA8650-06-C-

6635) from the Air Force Research Laboratory. We thank

Ms. Kellie Plummer and Dr. Rik Warren, our Contract Moni-

tors. We also acknowledge Curtis Hammond, Marie Kirsch,

Michael Wade, and Harry Funk for their contributions.

REFERENCES Breazeal, C. (2002). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language

Usage. Cambridge,UK; Cambridge Univ. Press.

Cassell, J. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: Science and Practice. New York: Harper-

Collins.

Cummings, M. L. (2004). The need for command and control instant message

adaptive interfaces: Lessons learned from tactical tomahawk human-in-the-

loop simulations. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 653-661.

Lee, J. D. & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in computer technology: Designing for

appropriate reliance. Human Factors. 46 (1), 50-80.

McNeese, M., Salas, E. & Endsley, M. (2001). New Trends in Cooperative

Activities. Santa Monica, CA; HFES.

Miller, C., Wu, P., Funk, H., Johnson, L. & Viljalmsson, H. (2007). A compu-

tational approach to etiquette and politeness: An “etiquette engine™” for

cultural interaction training. In Proceedings of BRIMS07 (pp. 189-198).

Orlando, FL: Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization.

Miller, C. and Smith, K. (2008). Culture, Politeness and Directive Compliance:

Does Saying “Please” Make a Difference? In Proceedings of the NATO

RTO Symposium HFM-142 on Adaptability in Coalition Teamwork. Co-

penhagen, April 21-23, 2008.

Miller, C., Wu, P. & Funk, H. (2008). A Computational Approach to Etiquette:

Operationalizing Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Model. IEEE Intelli-

gent Systems, 23(4), 28-35.

Nass, C., Moon, Y., Morkes, J., Kim, E., & Fogg, B. (1997). Computers are

social actors: A review of current research. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human

Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Cambridge University

Press, New York NY. 137-162.

Norman, D. (2002). Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better. Interac-

tions Magazine, 9 (4). 36-42.

Parasuraman, R. & Miller, C. (2004). Trust and Etiquette in High-Criticality

Automated Systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51-55.

Weiner, E., Kanki, B., & Helmreich, R. (1993). Cockpit resource manage-

ment. San Diego: Academic Press.

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 54th ANNUAL MEETING - 2010 491

at Bibliotheek TU Delft on June 10, 2013pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from