1

Social Dynamics Can Be Distorted in Video-Mediated Communication

Wei Huang, Judy Olson, Gary OlsonCollaboratory for Research on Electronic Work (CREW)

School of Information, University of Michigan

2

Overview

Problems Review of Aspects of Social Dynamics

Physical context Proximity Height

Experiment Results Discussion & Implications

3

Problems Motivation – video technologies are not fully

accepted and satisfied, WHY? Enthusiastic about video technologies “Despite Advances, Video Still a One-Way Channel”

(American Banker; Dec 2000, Quinn)

Mixed results on VMC research Video + audio add little audio-only communication on

cognitive tasks (Chapanis, 1975, 1972, etc) Video helps when

People have very little common ground (Veinott et al, 1998) Tasks involve negotiation (Short et al, 1976)

4

Theoretical perspective

Whittaker (1999, 1997) non-verbal communication that visual channel supports Cognitive cues to determine the other’s understanding;

head nods, visual attention Turn-taking cues to support conversation mgmt process;

head turning, posture, eye gaze Social or affective cues that reveal the other’s emotional

state and interpersonal attitudes; facial expression, posture, eye gaze

5

Theoretical grounding:Interpersonal communication

First impressions formed based on outward appearance cues age, gender, race, ethnicity, body shape, height, dress etc.

This includes a rapid categorization process and an activation of social schemas (Jones, 1990) We make assumptions Impressions formed later are reinforced or modified Initial impressions form baseline comparison which help to

make proper inferences and causal attributions, which affects the dynamics of interpersonal communication (Heider, 1958)

6

Distortion in VMC

Video systems don’t provide the full array of visual cues as in FtF interactions (Fussell et al, 1995) Physical context is blocked out

traditional “talking heads” VC systems only show the shoulder and head and fill the image on the screen

Titled perspective and direct eye-contact impossible Desktop VC systems have to place the camera on either

top, bottom, the side of the monitor

7

This study

Extends Whittaker’s non-verbal communication suggests that visual channel provides appearance and

physical context cues with which people form impressions of others, which affect people’s behavior.

Focuses on three factors Physical context cues on video Interpersonal distance on video Apparent height

8

Physical context

In FtF interaction includes setting of human communication, objects

and people Cues from the physical context help people

perceive precisely the size of an object (Walsh et al, 1998).

VMC Physical context is often blocked out (Mantei et al,

(1991)

9

Proxemics Hall (1966) - a person’s structuring and

perception of space

10

Proximity in FtF interaction

Equilibrium of interpersonal distance (Argyle et al, 1960s)

Interpersonal distance is often influenced by age, gender, race and culture M-M > M-F > F-F (Rosegrant, 1973) Arabian males keep very close distance (Hall, 1966) Same ages < different ages (Pedersen, 1973)

11

Proximity in VMC

Different from that in FtF (Heath, et al, 1991) Threat and occupation of space is attenuated Accessibility of nonverbal cues varies according to camera

zoom

VMC prototypes MAJIC

: Too far away: “Can you hear me?” instead of “Hello” (Okada et al, 1994)

Clearboard: Too close, not appropriate for strangers or people at different level (Ishii et al, 1993).

12

MAJIC

13

Clearboard

14

Height in FtF interaction Tall people are believed to enjoy higher status,

dominance and power (Ellis, 1994).

Height is positively related to social esteem, leader emergence, performance, income. (Judge et al, 2004, to be appeared in JAP)

Height - a predictor of social dominance and academic success (Hensley, 1993) Asst Prof. 1.24” taller, Assoc Prof. 1.50” taller, Full Prof. 1.97” taller, Chair 2.14” taller than average Americans of the same age and

gender

15

Height/camera angle in video

Perception of height can be manipulated by camera angles

TV/Film production Low angle = Superior High angle = Inferior

(Giannetti, 1973, 1999)

16

17

18

19

Purpose of this study

Examine apparent height effect in video-mediated communication, emphasize Negotiation: Group decision-making Interaction and influence measures Impressions of the others

We do that by Manipulating the camera angle and monitor placement Manipulating the camera zoom.

20

Hypothesis

Apparent height effect The apparently tall person (that is created by artificially

placing the camera lower) is more influential in the decision-making than is the apparently short person (created by artificially placing the camera higher).

The visibility of the physical context (that is manipulated by zooming in or out the camera) helps people to make judgments of the other’s height, and thus the more the context on the screen, the stronger the apparent height effect.

21

Experiment Design

2 x 2 (between-dyad) Monitor distance – one side: far (6 ft) vs. close (2 ft) Camera zoom: in or out Dyad: camera angle at high or low (+/- 28o)

Group decision-making: Arctic Survival Task Crash landing in inhospitable Artic area Expert ranking Individual ranking of 15 items Group ranking of 15 items

22

Experiment Design Cont.

Measures Individual task influence

the difference between one’s individual ranking and the group ranking. So the lower the score, the higher the influence

Perceived influence: Self-reported influence in post-test survey

Impressions of self & the other - Dominance Scale (Burgoon et al, 1992)

23

Experiment

Subject White Americans Male 18 – 35 years old 196 subjects

Distance

Zoom Far Close

Out 28 pairs 24 pairs

In 19 pairs 27 pairs

24

Distance

Zoom Far Close

Out 1 2

In 3 4

1 2

3 4

25

Distance

Zoom Far Close

Out 5 6

In 7 8

5 6

7 8

26

Task Performance

26

34

42

50

58

66

74

Out In

Zoom out or in

Gro

up E

xpert

ise

far

close

27

4

1424

3444

5464

74

far close far close

out in

Zoom x Distance

Indiv

idual I

nfluence

tall

short

Is ‘tall” more influential?

28

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

far close far close

Out In

Zoom x Distance

Perc

eiv

ed In

fluence %

tall

short

Is ‘tall’ perceived more influential?

29

What impressions were formed?Apparently Short's Rating

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

far close far close

Out InZoom x Distance

Rat

ing

of

Do

min

ance

SELF

PARTNER

Apparently Tall's Rating

3.8

44.2

4.4

4.64.8

5

far close far close

Out InZoom x Distance

Rat

ing

of

Do

min

ance

SELF

PARTNER

30

Summary of Findings

Distance of subject from monitor

Camera zoom Far Close

Out Tall > Short Tall = short

In Tall = short Tall = short

When monitor was placed at far distance and camera was zoomed out, there produced a significant height effect. Hypothesis is partially supported.

Impressions - Both apparently tall and short persons rated themselves more influential than they rated their partners.

31

Discussion

Finding We did find that apparently tall person was and was

perceived more influential in the group decision-making task only when more physical context was presented and monitor and camera was placed farther away and higher.

Apparent height effect Monitor & camera have to be placed farther away & higher

– apparently tall person has to be very tall. Task-oriented communication reduced the use of visual

channel.

32

Implications and future work

May impact more directly on tasks like distant interview over video where task itself involves interpersonal perception and judgment

In the future, plan to conduct conversation/language analysis and nonverbal communication analysis

Other factors such as screen size, lighting, camera horizontal angle, room objects are potentially important for distance collaboration.

33

Thanks!