First-person phrasing implies intent and responsibility

What it is

“I decided to snooze this reminder” and “reminder snoozed” can report the same fact. What the former adds is a subject who decides: it has intent, and it looks as if it could bear responsibility. First person implies intent and responsibility: “I” tells a rule firing as an act of will.

This is not the same cut as claims to understand, remember, or be sorry, which allege inner states. The cut here is agency: who is deciding, who is to be blamed.

Why it happens

A first-person pronoun in language is an agent slot. Hearers fill it with intent (why decide to snooze) and responsibility (who to find if the decision is wrong). The system has no intent, and legally responsibility usually does not sit on this fictional “I.” Once the slot is filled, users ask “why did you do that,” and when no one can be asked the anger stays in the product; or, the other way, they think a subject is already bearing it, and they check less.

Waytz’s mind perception does not need a face; one “I” is enough to start it. Nass’s social actor works in text too. So even without an avatar, first person is already doing the cheapest anthropomorphism, and the easiest to miss in review.

Studying it

The same state change, in “I decided / I …” versus “has been … / the system has …” Ask: whose decision is this, who to find if it is wrong, will you still check. Independent variables: person, whether a face is also shown, whether the act is high-stakes. Dependent variables: attribution of intent, attribution of responsibility, check rate.

On high-stakes acts, first person lowering checks is more harmful than in low-stakes chat. Report by setting.

Where it stops holding

In an explicit fictional character (a signed role-play), first person is part of the play and users may not take responsibility as real. In logs and audit text, first person pollutes traceability and should be banned. The user’s own “help me” is not the system’s first person. Claims to understand, remember, or be sorry imply inner states rather than agency, and are not expanded here.

Applying it

• States, decisions, and faults use no agent, or “the system,” as subject: “reminder snoozed to match your working hours,” not “I decided to snooze.”
• When a rule must be shown, say it as a rule: “matched working hours, therefore snoozed,” not as will.
• Confirmation copy on high-stakes acts bans first person, so it does not look as if someone is already bearing the responsibility.
• Check: point at a sentence “I decided…” and ask “whose decision is this, and who to find if it is wrong.” If the answer is the assistant itself, and your legal responsibility sits with the user or the company, first person is minting a responsible party who does not exist.

Related

• Same group: L5.06.1 Anthropomorphism raises capability expectations · L5.06.2 Disappointment after unmet expectation is larger than with a neutral voice
• Nearby: L5.12 Expectation Inflation from Anthropomorphism · L4.15 Accountability and Traceability · L5.04 Collapse of Trust
• Search terms: first-person interface · implied intent · agency in copy