CMC Aiding Interpersonal
Communication
What Video and Instant
Messaging Provide for
Interpersonal Communication
Social World
People form construals of their social
environment
Each of us is immersed in a social and
cultural context
We are not computer like organisms
– Responding directly and mechanically to
environmental stimuli
We are influenced by our construals
Influences and Construals
Construals are formed by:
– Need to Maintain High Self-Esteem
– Need to form an accurate picture of the world
Social influences from others influence the
above areas
Social Influence from Others comes from
– Direct attempts
– Mere presence of others
– Imagined presence of others
Social CMC Tools
All CMC is social in some ways
– Many models in level social abilities
Concern of this paper is video and IM
Video
Video is better than audio at supporting the
transmission of social cues and affective
information
– Changes outcome and character of
communication that requires social cues
– Participants focus more on motives
– Conversations are
• More polite
• Less argumentative
• More personalized
– Examples of interactions that change due to video
• Negotiation
• Bargaining
• Conflict Resolution
Video
Results can be explained by affective cues
through visual access
– Facial expressions
– Gestures
– Posture
This visual information allows people to make
inferences about other’s emotional or
affective state
Instant Messaging
Breakdown of Conversational Structure
Popularity
Conversational Structure
Orderliness
– Switch speaking/listening rules in an orderly
fashion (Turn Taking)
Cohesion
– Message makes sense in light of conversational
context (Adjacency Pairs)
Repair
– People work to make sure messages are mutually
understood (Speaker-Initiated and Listener
Initiated)
Turn Taking Cues by Media
Coherence Breakdown in IM
Two main obstacles to interaction management
– Lack of simultaneous feedback
• No audio
• One way systems
– Disrupted turn adjacency
• Message appear as received by computer
• Disrupted order
• Overlapping exchanges
• Irrelevant turns
Coping with Breakdown
Adaptations
– Specific address to whom you are
speaking to
– Symbols to represent turn taking
– Emoticons
Adaptations do not have enough of an
effect to overcome breakdown
Yet IM is still very popular
Popularity
Even with these breakdown IM is very
popular
One use is for social purposes
– Informal communication at the office
– Conversations with friends
– Dating online
– Chat rooms
The Questions
Since IM is mainly used for social interaction
and video aids such type of interaction, is
there a way to bring these two together?
Would such joining create a better CMC tool
for social interaction?
Or are these two types of systems socially
benefiting for different reasons and therefore
would not work with each other?
Current Thoughts
Video Failure
– The “effort” involved in videoconferencing
– It is necessary to do more extensive preparation for a
videoconference than a FTF meeting
– Privacy Issues
– Not Rich enough
In face of breakdowns, IM is popular
– Reduced Coherence is enjoyable?
– Multiple conversations is high stimulus?
– Depersonalization?
– Still not sure, Still searching
Current Thoughts
Video supports transmission of emotional and
affective cues through visual interface
IM allows people to not have themselves be
seen and can be anonymous
Work on IM
– Avatars
– Virtual Worlds
Seems area of having virtual representation
is popular yet real representation isn’t
Think line between virtual and real, but
maybe thick enough to keep video and IM
away from each other
Further Analysis
The type of social interaction that
occurs in IM
Future of IM
Areas similar to IM but more visual
Type of social interactions Video
benefits
Any other ideas?