Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-w79xw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T13:51:17.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Facing the future: emotion communication and the presence of others in the age of video-mediated communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Antony S. R. Manstead ,
Martin Lea  and
Jeannine Goh
Edited by
Arvid Kappas  and
Nicole C. Krämer
Antony S. R. Manstead
Affiliation:
Cardiff University, UK
Martin Lea
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK
Jeannine Goh
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK
Arvid Kappas
Affiliation:
Jacobs University Bremen
Nicole C. Krämer
Affiliation:
Universität Duisburg–Essen
Get access

Summary

Overview:Video-mediated communication is about to become a ubiquitous feature of everyday life. This chapter considers the differences between face-to-face and video-mediated communication in terms of co-presence and considers the implications for the communication of emotion, self-disclosure, and relationship rapport. Following initial consideration of the concepts of physical presence and social presence, we describe recent studies of the effect of presence on the facial communication of emotion. We then delve further into the different social psychological aspects of presence, and present a study that investigated how these various aspects independently impact upon self-disclosure and rapport. We conclude by considering how the absence of co-presence in video-mediated interaction can liberate the communicators from some of the social constraints normally associated with face-to-face interaction, while maintaining others and introducing new constraints specific to the medium.

Video-mediated interpersonal interactions are set to become a ubiquitous feature of everyday life. Recent advances in communication technologies, such as affordable broadband access to the internet and the appearance of third-generation mobile phones, mean that the much-heralded advent of the videophone is about to become reality. As video becomes ubiquitous, it places the face center-stage for the communication of emotion on the internet, much as it is in our normal “face-to-face” interactions. Of course the big difference between the face-to-face interactions that we take for granted today and the face-to-face interaction of the future is the absence of physical co-presence. In this new form of visual interaction, actors are separated by distance, communicating via webcams and computers or mobile phones.

Type
Chapter
Information
Face-to-Face Communication over the Internet
Emotions in a Web of Culture, Language, and Technology
 , pp. 144 - 175
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, C. H. (2001). Prosocial bias in theories of interpersonal communication competence: must good communication be nice? In Shepherd, G. J. and Rothenbuhler, E. W. (Eds.), Communication and Community (pp. 37–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google ScholarPubMed
Altman, I. and Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ando, K. (1978). Self-disclosure in the acquaintance process: effects of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Japanese Psychological Research, 20(4), 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyle, M. and Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Argyle, M. and Kendon, A. (1967). The experimental analysis of social performance. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. III, pp. 55–98). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Argyle, M. and Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and Mutual Gaze. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beattie, G. W. (1978). Floor apportionment and gaze in conversational dyads. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, G. W. (1979). Contextual constraints on the floor-apportionment function of speaker-gaze in dyadic conversations. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 391–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biocca, F., Harms, C., and Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12, 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biocca, F., Kim, J., and Choi, Y. (2001). Visual touch in virtual environments: an exploratory study of presence, multimodal interfaces, and cross-modal sensory illusions. Presence, 10, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, R. (1994). Social and emotional functions in facial expression and communication: the readout hypothesis. Biological Psychology, 38, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bull, P. and Brown, R. (1977). The role of postural change in dyadic conversations. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J. K. and Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnevale, P. J., Pruitt, D. G., and Seilheimer, S. D. (1981). Looking and competing: accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crown, C. L. (1991). Coordinated interpersonal timing of vision and voice as a function of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, R. D. (1976). An empirical investigation into the grammar of visual interaction: looks and stares. Man–Environment Systems, 6, 163–173.Google Scholar
Duggan, A. P. and Parrott, R. L. (2001). Research note: physicians' nonverbal rapport building and patients' talk about the subjective component of illness. Human Communication Research, 27, 299–311.Google Scholar
Edelmann, R. J. and Hampson, S. E. (1981). Embarrassment in dyadic interaction. Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edinger, J. A. and Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal involvement and social control. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 30–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In Cole, J. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971 (pp. 207–283). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior – categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and Ancoli, S. (1980). Facial signs of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1125–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C. and Ross, L. D. (1975). Intimacy in response to direct gaze. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 592–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Dols, J. M. and Ruiz-Belda, M. A. (1995). Are smiles a sign of happiness? Gold medal winners at the Olympic Games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1113–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Dols, J. M., Sánchez, F., Carrera, P., and Ruiz-Belda, M. A. (1997). Are spontaneous expressions and emotions linked? An experimental test of coherence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, J. and Lavitt, M. (1994). Computer-based self-help groups for sexual abuse survivors. Social Work with Groups, 17, 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flack, W. F., Laird, J. D., and Cavallaro, L. A. (1999). Separate and combined effects of facial expressions and bodily postures on emotional feelings. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 203–217.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, F. C. (1959). Information theory. In Koch, S. (ed.), Psychology: A Study of Science (pp. 611–636). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fridlund, A. J. (1991). Sociality of solitary smiling: potentiation by an implicit audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridlund, A. J. (1994). Human Facial Expression: An Evolutionary View. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Funder, D. C. and Colvin, C. (1988). Friends and strangers: acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gackenbach, J. (1998). Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goh, J. (2004). Self-Disclosure and Computer-Mediated Communication: Implications for Crisis Support on the Internet. M.Phil. dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. M. and Monk, A. F. (2003). Are you looking at me? Eye contact and desktop video conferencing. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 10, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greist, J. H., Klein, M. H., and VanCura, L. J. (1973). A computer interview by psychiatric patient target symptoms. Archives of General Psychiatry, 29, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gurtman, M. B. (1987). Depressive affect and disclosures as factors in interpersonal rejection. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11(1), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, U., Banse, R., and Kappas, A. (1995). The intensity of facial expression is determined by underlying affective state and social situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horley, K., Williams, L. M., Gonsalvez, C., and Gordon, E. (2003). Social phobics do not see eye to eye: a visual scanpath study of emotional expression processing. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17(1), 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ijsselstein, W. A., Ridder, H., Freeman, J., and Avons, S. E. (2000). Presence: concept, determinants and measurement. Proceedings of the SPIE, Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V, 3959–3976.Google Scholar
Jakobs, E., Manstead, A. S. R., and Fischer, A. H. (1999). Social motives and subjective feelings as determinants of facial displays: the case of smiling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 424–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, E., Manstead, A. S. R., and Fischer, A. H. (2001). Social context effects on facial activity in a negative emotional setting. Emotion, 1, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jourard, S. M. and Jaffe, P. E. (1970). Influence of an interviewer's disclosure on the self-disclosing behaviour of interviewee. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 17, 252–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: a research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 78–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraut, R. E. and Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: an ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1539–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ksionzky, S. and Mehrabian, A. (1980). Personality correlates of self-disclosure. Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, M. (1991). Rationalist assumptions in cross-media comparisons of computer-mediated communication. Behaviour and Information Technology, 10, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, M. and Duck, S. (1982). A model for the role of similarity of values in friendship development. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, M. and Giordano, R. (1997). Representations of the group and group processes in CSCW research: a case of premature closure? In Bowker, G. C., Star, S. L., Turner, W., and Gasser, L. (Eds.), Social Science, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide (pp. 5–26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lea, M. and Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In Wood, J. T. and Duck, S.. (eds), Understudied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track (pp. 197–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lea, M., Spears, R., and Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: effects of visual anonymity on self-categorization, stereotyping and attraction in computer-mediated groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, M., Spears, R., and Watt, S. E. (2007). Visibility and anonymity effects on attraction and group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 761–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marvin, C. (1988). When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking About Electric Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A. and Bargh, J. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: the implications of the internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from neutral verbal communications. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 414–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merten, J. (1997). Facial-affective behavior, mutual gaze and emotional experience in dyadic interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21(3), 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monk, A. F. and Gale, C. (2002). A look is worth a thousand words: full gaze awareness in video-mediated conversation. Discourse Processes, 33, 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, D. A. and Burgoon, J. K. (1990). Nonverbal conflict behaviors: functions, strategies, and tactics. In Cahn, D. D. (ed.), Intimates in Conflict: A Communication Perspective (pp. 77–104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., and Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: a language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 464–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, M. R. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: off the couch and into the world. In Burgoon, M. (ed.), Communication Yearbook 5 (pp. 79–107). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. L. (1973). Compensation in nonverbal immediacy behaviors: a review. Sociometry, 36, 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskar, R., Welch, G., Cutts, M., Lake, A., Stesin, L., and Fuchs, H. (1998). The office of the future: a unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays. InProceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH, (pp. 179–188). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T. and Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck, S. (ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions (pp. 367–389). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, P. and Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: the role of social identity. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, E. L. and Ekman, P. (1994). Coherence between expressive and experiential systems in emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression? A review of the cross-cultural studies. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 102–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutter, D. R. (1984). Looking and Seeing: The Role of Visual Communication in Social Interaction. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rutter, D. R. (1987). Communicating by Telephone. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Rutter, D. R., Stephenson, G. M., Ayling, K., and White, P. A. (1978). The timing of looks in dyadic conversation. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salem, D. A., Bogat, A., and Reid, C. (1997). Mutual help goes on-line. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 189–207.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stritzke, W. G. K., Nguyen, A., and Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and computer-mediated communication: a self-presentational theory perspective. Media Psychology, 6, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trommsdorff, G. and John, H. (1992). Decoding affective communication in intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallbott, H. G. (1991). The robustness of communication of emotion via facial expression: emotion recognition from photographs with deteriorated pictorial quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. W. and Kline, W. B. (1987). Self-disclosure of homosexual orientation. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., and Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 184–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaalberg, R., Manstead, A. S. R., and Fischer, A. H. (2004). Relations between emotions, display rules, social motives, and facial behavior. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 182–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×