Conversation, Media Effects

& Identity

CS294h – 26 JAN 2010

Computer-SupportedCooperative Work

(CSCW)

CSCW

“How collaborative activities and their coordination can be supported by means of computer systems”

- Grudin ‘88

“The study and theory of how people work together, and how the computer and related technologies affect group behavior” - Greenberg ‘91

CSCW

“CSCW is an umbrella term allowing people from a variety of disciplines to come together and discuss issues without any common ground as to the concept of CSCW, other than the very loose idea that it was somehow about the use of computers to support activities of people working together”

- Bannon ‘88

Key Concerns

(a) the distinctive qualities of co-operative processes, and how they are affected by technological mediation

(b) questions of design, i.e., how to mould computer technology to fit into and support work processes, often resulting in social software systems (neé “groupware”)

Key Concerns

(a) the distinctive qualities of co-operative processes, and how they are affected by technological mediation

(b) questions of design, i.e., how to mould computer technology to fit into and support work processes, often resulting in social software systems (neé “groupware”)

CONVERSATION

Qualities of conversation?What factors are important to consider when designing interfaces for communication?

space

tim

e

asynchronous

co-located

synchronous

co-located

asynchronous

remote

synchronous

remote

projectors

ambient displays

virtual workspaces

webemail

IMtable-top interactio

n

whiteboards

usenet

telephoneteleconference

snail-mailpost-it notes

tagging

flickr

blogs

youtube

graffiti

google earth

distributed visualization

space

tim

easynchronous / remoteDigital Media SharingGroupware CalendarsVotingMS Word CollaborationInstant messaging

asynchronous / co-locatedProject wallsMeeting room schedulesPost-It notesPublic displays

synchronous / co-locatedLarge displays / whiteboardsTabletop interactionSpectator interfaces

synchronous / remoteNetworked gamingVideo conferencingInstant messaging

“Look at that spike.”

“Look at the spike for Turkey.”

“Look at the spike in the middle.”

Common GroundCommon Ground: the shared understanding enabling conversation and collaborative action[Clark & Brennan ’91]

Principle of Least Collaborative Effort: participants will exert just enough effort to successfully communicate.[Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs ’86]

Reference and Deixis

Various forms of reference (Clark 2003, Brennan 2005)

General (“north by north west”)

Definite (“meet at Hoover Tower”)

Detailed (“get the blue ball”)

Deixis (“that one” while pointing)

Often combined together (gesture + speech)How to effectively capture and communicate

references in computer-mediated communication?

Depicting social activity

Read & Edit Wear, Hill et al 1992

Awareness

An understanding of the activities of others, which provides a context for your own activity. [Dourish & Belotti ‘92]

Ensure work is relevant to the group’s activity View the activities of others (e.g., live or via history) Coordination via shared artifacts Info explicitly generated or passively collected?

MEDIA EFFECTS

Video Eye contact problems:

Offset from camera to screen “Mona Lisa” effect

Gesture has similar problems: trying pointing at something across a video link.

MultiView – Nguyen & Canny

Directed vs. Non-directed Video

Turn-taking, back-channeling In a face-to-face meeting, people do a lot

of self-management. E.g., preparing to speak: lean forward, clear throat, shuffle paper.

Unfortunately, these are subtle gestures which don’t pass well through today’s technology.

Network delays make things much worse.

What do you think happens when you make turn-taking behaviors visible?

Is face-to-face the ideal?

Kiesler and Sproull findings: Participants talk more freely in email (than

F2F). Participation is more equal in email. More proposals for action via email. Reduced effects of status/physical appearance.But Longer decision times in email. More extreme remarks and flaming in email.

Field of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) studies such “media effects”

“The sensorial parsimony of plain text tends to entice users into engaging their imaginations to fill in missing details while, comparatively speaking, the richness of stimuli in fancy [systems] has an opposite tendency, pushing users’ imaginations into a more passive role.”

-- Curtis (1992)

IDENTITY

Identity and Reputation

Respondents on a therapy discussion forum:

bksmith@psych.stanford.edu RadeRLuv@hotmail.comOthers things being equal, who are you

more likely to trust? In what contexts?

Presentation of Self [Goffman ‘59]Expressions given (e.g., spoken words) vs. expressions given off (e.g., wavering of voice)

Conventional signalsLow-cost signals that can be fakede.g., wearing a Gold’s Gym t-shirt

Assessment signalsMore reliable signals that are hard to fakee.g., having large muscles

friendster

Identity at Play

Are you my friend?

yesyesyesyes nononono

I like youI like youI like youI like you I really like youI really like youI really like youI really like youI kind of like youI kind of like youI kind of like youI kind of like you

I feel socially obligated to link to youI feel socially obligated to link to youI feel socially obligated to link to youI feel socially obligated to link to youI know youI know youI know youI know you

I wish I knew youI wish I knew youI wish I knew youI wish I knew you I like your pictureI like your pictureI like your pictureI like your picture You are coolYou are coolYou are coolYou are cool

I was paid to link to youI was paid to link to youI was paid to link to youI was paid to link to you I want your reflected gloryI want your reflected gloryI want your reflected gloryI want your reflected glory

Everybody else links to youEverybody else links to youEverybody else links to youEverybody else links to you I’d vote for youI’d vote for youI’d vote for youI’d vote for you

We met at a conference and it seemed like the thing to do.We met at a conference and it seemed like the thing to do.We met at a conference and it seemed like the thing to do.We met at a conference and it seemed like the thing to do.

Can I date you?Can I date you?Can I date you?Can I date you?

I beat you on Xbox LiveI beat you on Xbox LiveI beat you on Xbox LiveI beat you on Xbox Live Hi, MomHi, MomHi, MomHi, Mom I have fake alter egosI have fake alter egosI have fake alter egosI have fake alter egos

Social (Group) Identity

A person’s sense of self derived from perceived membership in social groups. (Tajfel & Turner 1979)

Categorization: formation of social labels Identification: are you in-group or out-group? Comparison: how do the groups compare?

But surely group “membership—just like “friendship”—isn’t a simple binary distinction. What forms does group attachment take?

World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft

Common Identity Theory (Prentice ‘94)

Attachment through identification with the abstract group – its status, values, and goals.

Examples? Sierra Club National Rifle Association

Possible Implications Group members are interchangeable (Turner ‘85)

Identity more stable as members change

Common Bond Theory (Back ‘52)Group attachment achieved through

attachment to individual members – one likes the others.

Examples? Friendship circles Bridge clubs (Krackhardt & Porter ‘86)

Possible Implications Group members are not interchangeable People likely to leave if friends leave

Causes of Attachment

Common identity facilitated by: Social Categorization (even random

assignment!) Interdependence (common purpose and joint

tasks) Intergroup Comparison (e.g., competition)

Common bond facilitated by: Social Interaction (including co-presence) Personal Information (trust & intimacy) Personal Attraction through Similarity

Causes & Consequences (Ren ‘07)

Identity-based & Bond-basedIdentity-based attachment and bond-based attachment are not mutually exclusive. We can think of them as two dimensions of member’s attachment to groups. (Ren et al, 2007)

Example: Online Cancer ListFrom an existing member to a newcomer:

‘Welcome to the list nobody wants to join. While it really stinks to have to be here, you’ll find a wealth of experience. You’ll find many excellent suggestions and tips prior to surgery in the archives.’

Example: Online Cancer ListA note from one member to another:

‘Thanks for your kind words — YOU [sic] are an inspiration to me... ! I still remember that you were the first to respond to my first post on this list, more than 4+ years ago.’

CONCLUSION

Design Considerations

Modes of Conversation / Collaboration Collocated Remote Synchronous Asynchronous How do people move between modes?

Common Ground How do participants refer to elements? How might ambiguity arise? (Least effort?) Awareness cue to support coordination

Media Effects Differing social signals affect trust, openness,

assessment

Design Considerations

Markers of Identity and Reputation How do signals enable perception of identity? What design mechanisms facilitate reputation? Conventional vs. Assessment signals

Group Identity What forms of categorization might arise? Identity-based and Bond-based attachment How does design shape the forms of

attachment?