Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part 1 General aspects of visual cues in CMC
- 1 Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: sometimes less is more
- 2 To be seen or not to be seen: the presentation of facial information in everyday telecommunications
- 3 Gendered social interactions in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication
- Part 2 Video- and avatar-based communication
- Part 3 Emotions and visual cues in HCI
- Index
- Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction
- References
1 - Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: sometimes less is more
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part 1 General aspects of visual cues in CMC
- 1 Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: sometimes less is more
- 2 To be seen or not to be seen: the presentation of facial information in everyday telecommunications
- 3 Gendered social interactions in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication
- Part 2 Video- and avatar-based communication
- Part 3 Emotions and visual cues in HCI
- Index
- Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction
- References
Summary
Overview: This research reviews the promise and the pitfalls of visual cues in computer-mediated communication (CMC). The first section reviews theories advocating the utility of visual cues in telecommunication. Empirical research consistent with such theories has shown that communicators express preference for multichannel communication, whereas observational results, in contrast, indicate that visual cues often fail to enhance virtual groups' work. The second section extends this paradox by reviewing research that shows when and how visual cues detract from CMC social impressions and evaluations. Alternative uses of visual information, focusing on objects rather than people, show dramatically different effects. Taking into account the persistent preference for multimedia despite its disappointing results, the final section attempts to redirect theories of media selection to include a component about the principle of least effort in media preferences and how visual cues are at the same time easier and inferior to text-based CMC in many settings.
Talking with another individual is still the easiest way to share information, because other people have the ability to see our gestures and facial expressions, listen to our tone of voice and understand what we are trying to communicate.
Microsoft (1999), “Knowledge Workers Without Limits”The epigraph reflects a common presumption that an abundance of nonverbal cues is the easiest way to facilitate shared understanding. In contrast, some of my students' course evaluations reflect our regular face-to-face encounters in class:
“Prof. Walther means well but he is not the best instructor.”
“He was not concerned with our retention of information and his presentation of it was poor.”[…]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Face-to-Face Communication over the InternetEmotions in a Web of Culture, Language, and Technology, pp. 17 - 38Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
and (1996, May–June). The real value of on-line communities. Harvard Business Review, 74, 134–141.Google Scholar
, , and (1999). Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for persons with disabilities. Health Communication, 11, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. In and (eds), Handbook of Social Cognition (vol. I, pp. 119–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1992). Being there: the promise of multimedia communications. Technology Review, 95(4), 42–50.Google Scholar
and (1991). Grounding in communication. In , , and (eds), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1994). Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: an experiment in group writing. Information Systems Research, 5, 110–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991). Adding audio and video to an office environment. In and (eds), Studies in Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (pp. 49–62). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
(1999, May 19). 1999 CEO summit keynote. www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/05-19ceosummit.htm.Google Scholar
(1999). Virtual objects MIA: The problems of mediating multidisciplinary discourse in a software development group. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal (April).Google Scholar
, , and (2004). Language efficiency and visual technology: minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Assessing gender authenticity in computer-mediated language use: evidence from an identity game. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 424–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). The cognitive and interpersonal costs of video. Media Psychology, 1, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: a longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). Conversational themes and attention focusing strategies: predicting comprehension and recall. Communication Quarterly, 33, 236–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1981). Comparison of three approaches to semantic memory: network, feature comparison, and schema theory. Communication Quarterly, 29, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: online expectations and offline experiences in text-based virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue1/jacobson.html.Google Scholar
(1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: mediated communications in organizations. Communication Research, 5, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1981). Testing the theory of electronic propinquity. Communication Research, 8, 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2003). Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human–Computer Interaction, 18, 13–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5, 502–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000). The value of video in work at a distance: addition or distraction?Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996) The good deed. WIRED, 4.09. www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.09/starbright_pr.html.Google Scholar
, , , and (2003). Cultural differences in use of an electronic discussion group. Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 105–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1999, May 19). Knowledge workers without limits: Gates shares new vision and new technology at Microsoft CEO summit. www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/05-19ceosummit.mspx.
, , , and (1999). Teams without trust? Investigations in the influence of video-mediated communication on the origin of trust among cooperating persons. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1985). The social psychology of computer conversations. In (ed.), Human–Computer Interaction—INTERACT '84 (pp. 33–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.Google Scholar
, , and (2009). Computer-mediated teamwork and the efficiency framework: Exploring the influence of synchrony and cues on media satisfaction and outcome success. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1108–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: off the couch and into the world. In (ed.), Communication Yearbook 5 (pp. 79–107). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
, , and (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Media appropriateness: using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1987). Skill may not be enough: the role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
and (1995). Through a glass darkly: what do people learn in videoconferences?Human Communication Research, 22, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Cues to Identity in CMC: The Impact on Person Perception and Subsequent Interaction Outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. http://dare.uva.nl/record/220424.Google Scholar
and (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication, 53, 66–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Time effects in computer-mediated groups: past, present, and future. In and (eds), Distributed Work (pp. 235–257). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
, , and (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21, 460–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2008). Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35, 622–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In and (eds), Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses (pp. 153–188). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
, , and (2005). Let me count the ways: the interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-mediated communication and relationships. In and (eds), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd edn., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
, , and (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long term and short term virtual teams. Communication Research, 28, 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14
- Cited by