Conversation, Media Effects & Identity

CS 294h – 26 JAN 2010

C

omputer-

S

upported

C

ooperative

W

ork (

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?

post-it notes graffiti

asynchronous co-located

whiteboards table-top interaction ambient displays projectors

synchronous co-located

google earth blogs flickr snail-mail usenet

asynchronous remote

tagging web email youtube IM telephone teleconference

synchronous remote

virtual workspaces distributed visualization

space

asynchronous / co-located Project walls Meeting room schedules Post-It notes Public displays asynchronous / remote Digital Media Sharing Groupware Calendars Voting MS Word Collaboration Instant messaging synchronous / co-located Large displays / whiteboards Tabletop interaction Spectator interfaces synchronous / remote Networked gaming Video conferencing Instant messaging

space

“Look at that spike.”

“Look at the spike for Turkey.”

“Look at the spike in the middle.”

Common Ground

Common 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 Definite (“meet at Hoover Tower”) Detailed (“get the blue ball”) Deixis (“north by north west”) (“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.com

Others 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. e

xpressions given off

(e.g., wavering of voice)   Conventional signals Low-cost signals that can be faked e.g., wearing a Gold’s Gym t-shirt   Assessment signals More reliable signals that are hard to fake e.g., having large muscles

friendster

Identity at Play

I wish I knew you I like your picture You are cool I was paid to link to you I want your reflected glory Everybody else links to you I’d vote for you Can I date you?

Are you my friend?

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

yes no I like you I kind of like you I really like you I know you I beat you on Xbox Live I feel socially obligated to link to you Hi, Mom I have fake alter egos

Social (Group) Identity

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

Categorization Identification

group?

: formation of social labels : are you in-group or out-

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-based

Identity-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 List

From 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 List

A 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?