Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T13:04:27.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: sometimes less is more

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Joseph B. Walther
Edited by
Arvid Kappas  and
Nicole C. Krämer
Joseph B. Walther
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, USA
Arvid Kappas
Affiliation:
Jacobs University Bremen
Nicole C. Krämer
Affiliation:
Universität Duisburg–Essen
Get access

Summary

Overview: This research reviews the promise and the pitfalls of visual cues in computer-mediated communication (CMC). The first section reviews theories advocating the utility of visual cues in telecommunication. Empirical research consistent with such theories has shown that communicators express preference for multichannel communication, whereas observational results, in contrast, indicate that visual cues often fail to enhance virtual groups' work. The second section extends this paradox by reviewing research that shows when and how visual cues detract from CMC social impressions and evaluations. Alternative uses of visual information, focusing on objects rather than people, show dramatically different effects. Taking into account the persistent preference for multimedia despite its disappointing results, the final section attempts to redirect theories of media selection to include a component about the principle of least effort in media preferences and how visual cues are at the same time easier and inferior to text-based CMC in many settings.

Talking with another individual is still the easiest way to share information, because other people have the ability to see our gestures and facial expressions, listen to our tone of voice and understand what we are trying to communicate.

Microsoft (1999), “Knowledge Workers Without Limits”

The epigraph reflects a common presumption that an abundance of nonverbal cues is the easiest way to facilitate shared understanding. In contrast, some of my students' course evaluations reflect our regular face-to-face encounters in class:

“Prof. Walther means well but he is not the best instructor.”

“He was not concerned with our retention of information and his presentation of it was poor.”[…]

Type
Chapter
Information
Face-to-Face Communication over the Internet
Emotions in a Web of Culture, Language, and Technology
 , pp. 17 - 38
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, A. and Hagel, J. (1996, May–June). The real value of on-line communities. Harvard Business Review, 74, 134–141.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, D. O., Waldron, V. R., and Finn, J. (1999). Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for persons with disabilities. Health Communication, 11, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, W. F. and Nakamura, G. V. (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. In Wyer, R. S. and Srull, T. K. (eds), Handbook of Social Cognition (vol. I, pp. 119–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brittan, D. (1992). Being there: the promise of multimedia communications. Technology Review, 95(4), 42–50.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, R. M., and Teasley, S. D. (eds), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., and Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, A. R. and Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galagher, J. and Kraut, R. E. (1994). Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: an experiment in group writing. Information Systems Research, 5, 110–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, S. (1991). Adding audio and video to an office environment. In Bowers, J. M. and Benford, S. D. (eds), Studies in Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (pp. 49–62). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Gates, B. (1999, May 19). 1999 CEO summit keynote. www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/05-19ceosummit.htm.Google Scholar
Geisler, C. (1999). Virtual objects MIA: The problems of mediating multidisciplinary discourse in a software development group. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal (April).Google Scholar
Gergle, D., Kraut, R. E., and Fussell, S. R. (2004). Language efficiency and visual technology: minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C. and Martinson, A. (2004). Assessing gender authenticity in computer-mediated language use: evidence from an identity game. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 424–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, P. J. (1999). The cognitive and interpersonal costs of video. Media Psychology, 1, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., and O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: a longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housel, T. J. (1985). Conversational themes and attention focusing strategies: predicting comprehension and recall. Communication Quarterly, 33, 236–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housel, T. J. and Acker, S. R. (1981). Comparison of three approaches to semantic memory: network, feature comparison, and schema theory. Communication Quarterly, 29, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: online expectations and offline experiences in text-based virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue1/jacobson.html.Google Scholar
Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: mediated communications in organizations. Communication Research, 5, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korzenny, F. and Bauer, C. (1981). Testing the theory of electronic propinquity. Communication Research, 8, 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., and Siegel, J. (2003). Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human–Computer Interaction, 18, 13–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, M. and Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, M., Spears, R., and Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5, 502–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matarazzo, G. and Sellen, A. (2000). The value of video in work at a distance: addition or distraction?Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, S. (1996) The good deed. WIRED, 4.09. www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.09/starbright_pr.html.Google Scholar
McTavish, F., Pingree, S., Hawkins, R., and Gustafson, D. H. (2003). Cultural differences in use of an electronic discussion group. Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 105–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Microsoft (1999, May 19). Knowledge workers without limits: Gates shares new vision and new technology at Microsoft CEO summit. www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/05-19ceosummit.mspx.
Mühlfelder, M., Klein, U., Simon, S., and Luczak, H. (1999). Teams without trust? Investigations in the influence of video-mediated communication on the origin of trust among cooperating persons. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, D. and Bevan, N. (1985). The social psychology of computer conversations. In Shackel, B. (ed.), Human–Computer Interaction—INTERACT '84 (pp. 33–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.Google Scholar
Nowak, K., Watt, J. H., and Walther, J. B. (2009). Computer-mediated teamwork and the efficiency framework: Exploring the influence of synchrony and cues on media satisfaction and outcome success. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1108–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, M. R. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: off the couch and into the world. In Burgoon, M. (ed.), Communication Yearbook 5 (pp. 79–107). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Postmes, T., Spears, R., and Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, G. and Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: the role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, J. A., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Storck, J. and Sproull, L. (1995). Through a glass darkly: what do people learn in videoconferences?Human Communication Research, 22, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanis, M. (2003). Cues to Identity in CMC: The Impact on Person Perception and Subsequent Interaction Outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. http://dare.uva.nl/record/220424.Google Scholar
Tanis, M. and Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication, 53, 66–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B.(1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B.(1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B.(2002). Time effects in computer-mediated groups: past, present, and future. In Hinds, P. and Kiesler, S. (eds), Distributed Work (pp. 235–257). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., and Park, D. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21, 460–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B. and Bazarova, N. (2008). Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35, 622–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B. and Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In Lin, C. A. and Atkin, D. (eds), Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses (pp. 153–188). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B., Loh, T., and Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: the interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B. and Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-mediated communication and relationships. In Knapp, M. L. and Daly, J. A. (eds), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd edn., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C., and Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long term and short term virtual teams. Communication Research, 28, 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×