Video helps remote work: speakers who need to negotiate common ground benefit from seeing each other

More and more organizations are forming teams that are notco-located. These teams communicate via email, fax, telephone andaudio conferences, and sometimes video. The question often ariseswhether the cost of video is worth it. Previous research has shownthat video makes people more satisfied with the work, but it doesnthelp the quality of the work itself. There is one exception;negotiation tasks are measurably better with video. In this study,we show that the same effect holds for a more subtle form ofnegotiation, when people have to negotiate meaning in aconversation. We compared the performance and communication ofpeople explaining a map route to each other. Half the pairs havevideo and audio connections, half only audio. Half of the pairswere native speakers of English; the other half were non-nativespeakers, those presumably who have to negotiate meaning more. Theresults showed that non-native speaker pairs did benefit from thevideo; native speakers did not. Detailed analysis of theconversational strategies showed that with video, the non-nativespeaker pairs spent proportionately more effort negotiating commonground.

[1]  Steven M. Farmer,et al.  Effects of Task Language Demands and Task Complexity on Computer-Mediated Work Groups , 1994 .

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

[3]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work? , 1995, CHI '95.

[4]  Alphonse Chapanis,et al.  Interactive human communication , 1975 .

[5]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Analysis of gestures in face-to-face design teams provides guidance for how to use groupware in design , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.

[6]  A. Anderson,et al.  The Effects of Visibility on Dialogue and Performance in a Cooperative Problem Solving Task , 1994 .

[7]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  SHORT NOTE Evaluation of Alternative Media Used with a Groupware Editor in a Simulated Telecommunications Environment , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Evangeline Marlos Varonis,et al.  Non-native/Non-native Conversations: A Model for Negotiation of Meaning , 1985 .

[9]  Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon,et al.  Face-to-face and video mediated communication: a comparison of dialogue structure and task performance , 1997 .

[10]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Small Group Design Meetings: An Analysis of Collaboration , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[12]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  User‐centered design of collaboration technology , 1991 .

[13]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work , 1990 .

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

[15]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  The Hcrc Map Task Corpus , 1991 .

[16]  D. Reisberg,et al.  Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lip-reading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. , 1987 .

[17]  G. D. Weeks,et al.  Studies in Interactive Communication: I. The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Cooperative Problem-Solving , 1972 .

[18]  Carmen Egido,et al.  Teleconferencing as a technology to support cooperative work: Its , 1990 .

[19]  David Taylor Hearing by Eye: The Psychology of Lip-Reading , 1988 .

[20]  Xiaolan Fu,et al.  Video matters!: when communication ability is stressed, video helps , 1997, CHI Extended Abstracts.