Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?

This article asks whether, and when, participants benefit from seeing each other's faces in computer-mediated communication. Although new technologies make it relatively easy to exchange images over the Internet, our formal understanding of their impacts is not clear. Some theories suggest that the more one can see of one's partners, the better one will like them. Others suggest that long-term virtual team members may like each other better than would those who use face-to-face interaction. The dynamic underlying this latter effect may also pertain to the presentation of realistic images compared with idealized virtual perceptions. A field experiment evaluated the timing of physical image presentations for members of short-term and long-term virtual, international groups. Results indicate that in new, unacquainted teams, seeing one's partner promotes affection and social attraction, but in long-term online groups, the same type of photograph dampens affinity.

[1]  Steven W. Duck,et al.  Under-studied relationships : off the beaten track , 1996 .

[2]  B. Rind,et al.  Judging personality traits of adolescents from photographs. , 1993, The Journal of social psychology.

[3]  Charles R. Berger,et al.  Studies in interpersonal epistemology: III. Anticipated interaction, self‐monitoring, and observational context selection , 1981 .

[4]  Stephen J. Gale,et al.  Adding audio and video to an office environment , 1990 .

[5]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  The Cognitive and Interpersonal Costs of Video , 1999 .

[6]  Daniel T. Gilbert,et al.  Seeing Less and Knowing More The Benefits of Perceptual Ignorance , 1988 .

[7]  Sara A. Bly,et al.  It's all in the words: supporting work activites with lightweight tools , 1999, GROUP '99.

[8]  J. Walther.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[9]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Video-Mediated Communication , 1997 .

[10]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  The measurement of interpersonal attraction , 1974 .

[11]  M. Snyder.  On the Self-Fulfilling Nature of Social Stereotypes. , 1977 .

[12]  A. Noll.  Anatomy of a failure: picturephone revisited , 1992 .

[13]  Lee-Ellen Marvin,et al.  Spoof, Spam, Lurk and Lag: the Aesthetics of Text-based Virtual Realities , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[14]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis , 1984 .

[15]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Rethinking video as a technology for interpersonal communications: theory and design implications , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[16]  Bolanle A. Olaniran,et al.  A model of group satisfaction in computer-mediated communication and face-to-face meetings , 1996, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[17]  J. Walther,et al.  Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction , 1990 .

[18]  J. Walther.  Impression Development in Computer-Mediated Interaction. , 1993 .

[19]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  The role of vision in face-to-face and mediated communication. , 1997 .

[20]  J. Walther.  Anticipated Ongoing Interaction Versus Channel Effects on Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1994 .

[21]  R. Rice.  Media Appropriateness Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Traditional and New Organizational Media , 1993 .

[22]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Beyond being there , 1992, CHI.

[23]  J. Walther.  Group and Interpersonal Effects in International Computer-Mediated Collaboration , 1997 .

[24]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance , 1985 .

[25]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[26]  Michael Argyle,et al.  The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non‐verbal signals , 1971 .

[27]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[28]  David W. Park,et al.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1994 .

[29]  Russell Spears,et al.  Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. , 1995 .

[30]  R. Spears,et al.  De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication , 1990 .

[31]  H. Miller.  The Presentation of Self in Electronic Life: Goffman on the Internet , 1995 .

[32]  Fraser J. M. Reid,et al.  The messaging threshold in computer-mediated communication , 1996 .

[33]  L. Tidwell,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time , 2002 .

[34]  Charles Steinfield,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communications in Organizational Settings , 1992 .

[35]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Nonverbal Expectancies and the Evaluative Consequences of Violations , 1990 .

[36]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1989 .

[37]  Janice R. Kelly,et al.  Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. , 1985 .

[38]  Jerold L. Hale,et al.  Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication , 1987 .

[39]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups , 1996, MIS Q..

[40]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? , 1998 .

[41]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Through a Glass Darkly What Do People Learn in Videoconferences , 1995 .

[42]  Pavel Curtis,et al.  Mudding: Social phenomena in text-based virtual realities. , 1997 .

[43]  H. William Vroman.  GlobalWork Bridging Distance, Culture & Time , 1994 .

[44]  J. Walther.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[45]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? , 1998, The American psychologist.

[46]  Martin Lea,et al.  Contexts of computer-mediated communication , 1992 .

[47]  Clifford Nass,et al.  When my face is the interface: an experimental comparison of interacting with one's own face or someone else's face , 1998, CHI.

[48]  Robert Johansen,et al.  Global Work: Bridging Distance, Culture & Time , 1994 .

[49]  S. Weisband.  Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

[50]  C. Berger,et al.  SOME EXPLORATIONS IN INITIAL INTERACTION AND BEYOND: TOWARD A DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION , 1975 .

[51]  Steven G. Jones.  CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community , 1994 .

[52]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[53]  Lee Sproull,et al.  When the Interface Is a Face , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[54]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[55]  Joel Ager,et al.  Analysis of Variance in Small Group Research , 1978 .

[56]  A. Eagly,et al.  What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. , 1991 .

[57]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[58]  Janice R. Kelly,et al.  Capacity and Capability , 1990 .

[59]  David Jacobson,et al.  Impression Formation in Cyberspace: Online Expectations and Offline Experiences in Text-based Virtual Communities , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[60]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The impact of anthropomorphic interfaces on influence understanding, and credibility , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[61]  S. Utz.  Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in virtual worlds. , 2000 .

[62]  R. Rice,et al.  Electronic Emotion , 1987 .