Designing Interfaces to Maximize the Quality of Collaborative Work

Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999 Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999

Designing Interfaces to Maximize the Quality of Collaborative Work Judee K. Burgoon University of Arizona [email protected]

Bjorn Bengtsson Umea University [email protected]

Joseph A. Bonito Artemio Ramirez, Jr. University of Arizona University of Arizona [email protected] [email protected] Norah E. Dunbar University of Arizona [email protected]

Abstract Technological advances provide designers with tools to develop interfaces with anthropomorphic qualities. However, it is not known how human participants accommodate such design features in their interactions with computers, nor do we know if these features facilitate or hinder information exchange and task performance. Study 1 examined the properties of mediation, contingency, and modality richness, whereas Study 2 examined the property of mediation. Results show that the some design features are better than others given the goal of the encounter (e.g., passive involvement vs. relation building). Discussion focuses on the relation between user perceptions, design features, and task outcomes.

1. Introduction Rapidly developing technology now affords organizations, business, individuals and institutions of learning a cornucopia of options for engaging in communication and information exchange, especially for conducting distributed tasks and collaborative work. Computermediated communication (CMC) is becoming ubiquitous, not only in such familiar text-based forms as email, NetMeetings, and computerized group support systems but also multimedia forms such as videoconferencing. Increasingly augmenting these tools are the use of computers as intelligent agents to conduct part or all of a transaction with individuals. Such human-computer interaction (HCI) utilizes computer interfaces that present and process information according to a set of predefined algorithms and that come in a variety of guises with various levels of functionality. For example, callers may be given a menu presented by a recorded or synthesized voice, and options are selected by pressing the appropri-

ate pad on the caller's telephone. Technological advancements in voice recognition software, synthesized voices, computer animation, and the addition of other nonverbal cues that simulate human facial expressions and gestures mean that interaction with virtual agents, as well as mediated human-human communication, is no longer limited to text or keyed responses. Other advances in artificial intelligence are also enabling more adaptive responses to human input by relying on for example, parsing of natural language text. When many options exist for designing a given communication and information system, the temptation is to include them all merely for the sake of including them. The real goals of building a computer interface to support collaborative group work, however, ought to be to facilitate clear and accurate information exchange, efficient transactions, high-quality collaborative work, and the like, i.e., to optimize the collaboration purposes for which the interface is being utilized. Therefore, the problem facing designers is to understand how features of computer interfaces relate to features of the interaction between human users or between human user and computer, and the nature of the outcomes associated with the transaction. The investigations to be reported here offer a multidimensional look at this issue by examining user perceptions when conducting the same task via several forms of CMC, HCI, and face-to-face (FtF) interaction. Results from two experiments are reported in which we examine user experiences along dimensions related to evaluations of the communication format or mode, the communication process, and task partners. Study 1 was undertaken to explore the impact of increasing anthropomorphism in an HCI interface. The effects on decision quality, influence, accurate understanding, and judged credibility11 of task partners are reported in fuller detail in a separate HICCS report (see [1]). Of interest here is how users’ assessments relate to these outcomes, with an eye to identifying which features of interfaces yield the most beneficial results. The second investigation replicated the first but with human-human interaction under CMC and FtF conditions. Once again, emphasis is on how selfreported user experiences relate to the outcomes of decision quality, influence, accuracy, and credibility. Because results of Study 2 come from an experiment still in progress, only a subset of experimental conditions is presented here. Even at this preliminary stage, however, many provocative relationships are evident that have implications for designing computerized group support systems and computer interfaces for CMC and HCI. 1 Credibility is a multidimensional construct itself, comprised of interrelated judgments of character, truthfulness, competence, sociability, dynamism, and dominance.

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

1


In what follows, we first preview the salient features of the interfaces under consideration here. Two key issues driving the assessment of the interfaces are the extent to which they afford greater inter-activity and create greater anthropomorphism. Next we preview some of the relationships that should be expected between features of the interface and resultant user experiences and interaction outcomes. We then describe the two studies and their results, organized around the dimensions of judgments that users made. Specifically, we consider assessments of: the communication format in terms of its utility; the communication process in terms of the degree to which the interaction creates perceptions of involvement, connectedness, receptivity, similarity, and feeling understood; and assessments of the partner (human or computer) on attractiveness, expectedness, and desirability. Examination of these assessments begins to answer the question of how interfaces might systematically facilitate positive user experiences and outcomes or can be designed to do so.

2. Inter-Activity and Anthropomorphism in Human-Computer and Human-Human Interaction 2.1. Properties of Inter-Activity Some champions of advanced information technologies believe that HCI and CMC will eventually supplant face-to-face communication in the workplace. Others are convinced that mediated interactions cannot substitute for face-to-face interaction and that some level of FtF interaction must be retained, especially if tasks are complex, involve statistical information or sophisticated inferences and judgments, or depend on trusting and solid interpersonal relationships (see, e.g., [2]). At issue, then, is which communication formats--e.g., HCI, CMC, FtF-are most advantageous, under what circumstances, and why. Answers to these questions are necessary so that interfaces can be selected wisely and future interfaces designed to maximize benefits while minimizing unintended detrimental consequences such as too little or too much trust, misunderstanding, or acceptance of dubious information. We have addressed this issue by trying to identify intrinsic properties of face-to-face (FtF) communication that ought to be retained, supplemented, amplified, or suppressed in HCI and CMC formats, depending on the goal at hand. This is not meant to imply that FtF is the only role model for modern forms of communication but rather to understand the properties that differentiate various communication formats. Each format is useful in its own right, but differences among them must be under-

stood profoundly by users. We theorize that it is these properties that systematically account for the differences in cognitions and behaviors that are apparent across mediated and nonmediated, human-human and humancomputer interaction. The properties we have identified collectively comprise the principle of inter-activity, which is shorthand for interpersonal interactivity and is hyphenated to underscore the active nature of the interaction process. Although the meaning of the term inter-activity may seem self-evident, it has been applied to widely divergent communication formats and actually consists of a constellation of properties, one or more of which may be the operative feature creating “inter-activity.” Chief among these collective properties are participation (whether users are placed in the role of active interlocutor or observer), mediation (whether the communication format is mediated electronically or not), contingency (whether one person’s queries, responses, and comments are dependent upon the prior ones of the co-interactant), modality richness (whether the format utilizes one or more modalities such as text, audio, and video), geographic propinquity (whether users are co-located or distributed), synchronicity (whether interaction is same-time or asynchronous), and identification (whether users are partially or fully identified or anonymous). (See [1] for further elaboration of the principle of inter-activity.) Among the most obvious properties distinguishing different communication formats are whether the interaction entails some form of mediation, whether there is interdependence among turns at talk, i.e., contingency, and how many modalities are available to users, i.e., modality richness. Additionally, modalities may differ qualitatively in the degree of anthropomorphism that they simulate. For example, a computer agent may appear as an animated cartoon figure (like Microsoft’s paperclip office assistant), a still photograph, or a more human-like character. All three agents utilize the visual modality but the latter two are more human-like than the first. Study 1 examined the properties of mediation, contingency, modality richness, and anthropomorphism of form via the creation of seven different experimental conditions: FtF with noncontingent responses, FtF with contingent responses, HCI text-only, HCI text plus synthesized voice, HCI text plus synthesized voice and still image, HCI text plus synthesized voice and lip-synched animated figure, and HCI with synthesized voice and animation but no text. The latter five conditions represent what we theorized would be increasing degrees of anthropomorphism. In each case, naive subjects interacted with a confederate who communicated FtF or with a computer partner. Study 2 examined mediation and contingency through three experimental conditions: unmedi-

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

2


ated (contingent) FtF, FtF with text mediation, and an offset FtF control group with naive participants, i.e., no confederates.2 A crucial aspect of design is understanding the relation between the task and the interface. Tasks are defined by the nature of the goal sets associated with them. Many electronically mediated encounters are intended to accommodate customers' or clients' demands, needs, or wants. Others are designed to persuade the user to choose a particular service or company, or to purchase a product. Yet others are intended to facilitate collaborative work among co-located or distributed group members, while others have more interpersonal, social, or recreational objectives. As interfaces become more contingent, multimodal, and anthropomorphic, it is adventitious to ascertain the payoffs associated with using them for particular tasks and objectives. For example, in some cases, anthropomorphic interfaces may not produce any noticeable gain over text-based ones, whereas in other cases the differences might be dramatic. Similarly, there are cases where text-based interfaces are more effectual than audiovisual ones. In some cases, there is no substitute for FtF contact, but in other cases, CMC may actually produce more understanding and rapport among participants than FtF contact [3], [4] or mitigating undue influence by an electronically mediated source. In short, not all tasks or situations need or should be handled by humanappearing or multimodal computer interfaces. In [1], we found that greater computer anthropomorphism did not necessarily improve outcomes. The computer agent was more influential than the human partner, especially when using text and/or text and voice, and decision quality was actually highest when the computer agent was presented as text with synthesized voice rather than with the addition of still or animated facial images. Put differently, creating highly anthropomorphic features yielded less influence and lower quality decisions. On social judgments, however, FtF interaction generated more favorable perceptions of the partner’s credibility than did the computer conditions, on average. Why might these counterintuitive results have been obtained? Study 1 partially illuminates this puzzle by correlating users’ self-reported experiences with the outcomes of influence, decision quality, understanding, and credibility. For convenience of interpretation, these user experiences are divided into those related to the communication format itself, those related to the communication process between user and partner (human or computer), and those related to evaluations of the partner. The latter include evaluations beyond the credibility assessments already reported. 2 Future conditions to be completed include distributed text, audioconferencing, and videoconferencing.

2.2. Assessing the Communication Format In predicting how users might respond to computer agents and interfaces, we took an "application-centered" approach. Our thinking centered around such applications as search engines, web-agents, filtering devices, and decision support systems, i.e., the kinds of tools that will surely become commonplace very soon. For many kinds of transactions employing these tools, users may neither need nor expect highly inter-active or anthropomorphic interfaces. For example, in the case of computer agents, people are unlikely to expect them to be imbued with highly advanced (close to human) features or to have the ability to sustain a prolonged conversation, because that is not the nature of the encounter. Like a visit to the post office, in which people simply state their business then wait as the clerk carries out the job and issues a receipt, many situations do not include a lot of contingencies or require the sense of social presence that multiple modalities are intended to afford [5]. So, if we compare people and machines in relatively deterministic situations, then computers may not be held to the same standard as humans. They need not suffer from any noticeable drawbacks in contingency management or modality richness relative to FtF encounters. However, adding some modalities may yield benefits in terms of efficient and effective task completion. Within HCI conditions, for example, the addition of the vocal modality, by simulating oral communication, should afford greater redundancy of information, which, from the standpoint of efficiency and clarity of understanding, should increase both the utility of the interface and the apparent effortlessness of the transaction. Moreover, computers may accrue gains in efficiency of interaction by virtue of delimiting possible outcomes [6]. Thus, an overarching criterion for judging a communication format may be its usefulness in, say, accomplishing tasks more rapidly, with less expenditure of resources, or with greater fidelity of information exchange. From this it stands to reason that interfaces that are perceived as more useful should produce better outcomes. If this is true, then the higher decision quality, influence, accuracy of understanding, and credibility that Bengtsson et al. found in text- and voice-based versions of HCI should be attributable partly to their utility. Extended to other communication formats, the same relationship between perceived utility and desired outcomes should be obtained. Conversely, formats that are perceived as less useful or user-friendly should be associated with lower quality outcomes.

2.3. Assessing the Interaction

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

3


A common thread in communication research is that people often make decisions about what to say and how to interpret remarks made by others as a function of assessments of the participants and of the interaction. It is fairly common, for example, for a comment to be more persuasive if the person who produced it is deemed similar to the hearer, credible, or trustworthy. Similarly, the character of interaction, its pace, progression of topics, conclusion, and one's ability to control what gets talked about and how, all influence participants’ assessment of the encounter. Communication, then, is a fundamentally social endeavor in which both interaction itself and the people involved in it are mutually influential and consequential for the production and interpretation of messages. In decision-making tasks, a key aspect along which interactions may be judged is the extent to which participants feel fully engaged in the process, believe that others are open to their input, and believe that their input is understood. (Notice that this form of understanding relates not to actual accuracy of recalling another’s information but rather to feelings of being understood or misunderstood). As part of the principle of inter-activity, we theorize that these perceptions represent some of the qualitative features that participants equate with interactivity. They are what make a mode of communicating look and feel inter-active. In other words, separate from the structural affordances an interface provides--such as contingent responding, multiple modalities, or synchronicity--are the experiential dimensions that make a communication format seem more or less interactive. We theorized that two experiential dimensions that contribute to the perception of a communication environment or format as inter-active are its degree of involvement and mutuality. Involvement concerns the extent to which users experience high cognitive, sensory, visceral, and motor engagement in an interaction, i.e., the interaction creates a sense of presence, of “here and now.” Mutuality also has multiple facets. Psychologically, it may take such forms as a sense of connectedness and similarity to others. Behaviorally, interactants may perceive they expressed openness and receptivity to one another’s viewpoints. Cognitively, it may take the form of feeling understood. If greater inter-activity promotes better outcomes, then perceived involvement and mutuality should be positively related to partner influence and credibility, to decision quality, and to accuracy of understanding. Some preliminary research supports this reasoning. An experiment which manipulated participation directly [7] found profound differences across conditions. When both parties to the interaction were fully participative, partners were judged as more believable (credible) and their communication was viewed as more involved,

dominant, and pleasant than when one had the role of passive observer. Another experiment found that participative receivers achieved greater understanding than did eavesdropping observers [8]. From these findings we can surmise that greater involvement and mutuality correlate with positive outcomes. Given that computers are able (and usually designed to) control topics and the pace of interaction [6], interfaces that engender greater involvement and mutuality should generate better outcomes.

2.4. Assessing the Partner A key indicator of interface “success” is how it affects users’ reactions to collaborative task partners, be they human or computer. It may seem peculiar to think of judging computers in the same manner as humans. But computers, by virtue of their participation, functionality, and appearance, are responded to in fundamentally social ways and are subject to the same kinds of communication evaluations that are commonly reserved for humans (e.g., [9]; [10]; [11]). A computer can be thought of, for example, as more or less competent, engaging, or influential. Moreover, since computers vary in participativeness, functionality, and appearance, there ought to be corresponding differences in user perceptions of them. Mass media research has demonstrated that people ascribe high credibility to the media (e.g., [12]). It may be that mediated communication forms in general are accorded a positive bias such that users assume whatever is delivered through a mechanical or electronic medium has already been authenticated and so is, de facto, regarded as credible. There is also evidence of credibility rising as a medium becomes "richer" in the sensory channels that are engaged and the amount of social information it supplies [13]. Thus, different forms of computer agents have the potential to elicit differential user evaluations of them, just as different mediated formats have the potential to elicit differential evaluations of other human collaborators who are using them. In [1], we found that, contrary to the results for the influence measures, HCI conditions were less credible than FtF interaction on judgments of truthfulness, sociability, and dynamism. Among the HCI interfaces, the text-only condition received the most consistently favorable ratings. One question this raises is whether credibility is unrelated to influence and accurate information exchange. If so, when selecting or designing interfaces, might one achieve gains on decision quality at the expense of positive regard for co-actors? To answer this question, we examined the correlations among the credibility dimensions and the other outcome measures but, for purposes of increasing generalizability, expanded our assessments to include three other judgments--the task at-

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

4


tractiveness of the partner and the expectedness and desirability of the partner’s behavior. These latter two measures have direct bearing on whether the poorer judgments of the computer agent might be attributable to what has been called the black sheep effect--viewing an imperfect agent with some suspicion or as a violation of expectations. Ample communication research has demonstrated that humans enter interaction with "templates" for how the interaction should proceed and then judge the ensuing communication against them [14]; [15]; [16]. Expectations can be about communicators themselves, relationships, or communication contexts (i.e., the nature of the interaction and the goals associated with them), or some combination of the three. They may arise from generic knowledge—groupor cultural-level norms—or from individuating information acquired from previous interactions, direct observation, or second-hand information. Expectations, then, are complex cognitive resources that allow individuals to navigate through interaction in fairly systematic ways, even with persons unfamiliar to the individual. When interaction is perceived to be at odds with what is expected, actors become oriented to the source of the violation (usually the interlocutor) and responses--both positive and negative--become amplified relative to expected interaction [17]. Burgoon and Le Poire [18], for example, showed that people were evaluated positively when interaction involvement was either consistent with or positively exceeded expectations, and persons whose involvement was inappropriate were evaluated negatively. If HCI agents are unexpected in a jarring or unpleasant sense, or CMC interfaces create interaction processes that are seen as negative violations of expectations, then interaction outcomes should be similarly unfavorable. The black sheep effect implies that violations are likely to be of a negative sort, which leads to the predictions that the more expected the behavior of the partner, the more favorable the outcomes should be. However, the extensive body of research on expectancy violations introduces the possibility of positive violations, which would lead to the prediction that the best outcomes occur with positive violations, followed by positively evaluated expected behaviors, and lastly, expected or violative behaviors that are negatively evaluated. In the two studies reported below, interfaces are compared on the mean ratings on each of these classes of assessments (format, interaction, and partner), then the correlations between user experiences and task outcomes are presented to reveal which aspects of user experiences have the most relevance to outcomes of interest. Across the two studies, the 10 different communication formats that are represented offer sufficient variation to ascertain how much the measures of user experiences differentiate among them.

3. Method Study 1 Participants Participants (N = 70) were male undergraduate students in the social sciences at Umea University (Umea, Sweden) who were solicited via posters on campus to engage in a study of alternative problem-solving methods. They were paid approximately $10 (100 Swedish crowns) for their participation. Materials The main experimental manipulation for this study concerned varying type of participant (human or computer) and, in the case of the computer, the degree to which the interface was made to appear human. Dependent measures were gathered via survey instruments. Experimental manipulations. The experimental conditions varied the "humanness" of the interlocutors with whom participants were partnered. In the five computer conditions, which ranged from text-only to a human-like image with synthesized speech and matching lip synchronization, an experimenter controlled the computer output. In the remaining two FtF conditions, human confederates presented the same scripted responses as in the HCI conditions but under two variations. They either adhered strictly to the script, producing a largely noncontingent form of interaction in which they did not respond to unplanned partner queries or comments, or they interacted "freely" (i.e., in a normal, contingent turn-taking fashion) while still introducing the same information supplied in the script. Full descriptions of each condition are presented in [1].3 Interaction task and procedures. The task—the Desert Survival Problem—asks participants to imagine that their jeep has crashed in the Kuwaiti Desert, with no sign of potable water but some salvageable items from the wreckage. They then rankorder 12 items for their survival value: a piece of blue canvas, a set of ground cloths, a gun, a box of matches, a 3 The text-only condition utilized separate windows on the screen for presenting in the computer’s and the participant’s responses. In the conditions employing vocal cues, text-to-speech synthesis software developed by KTH was used. In the animation conditions, an animated face, moving its lips and facial skin synchronized with the speech, and occasionally flashing its eyelashes was presented. The animation software used in this study was developed by Jonas Beskow and Magnus Lundeberg at KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden, and is further described in [30] and [31]. The computer image was named "Holger." The same image was used in the still image condition. In the noncontingent FtF condition, which is described in [1] as the scripted condition, the male confederates followed the script explicitly, which often meant disregarding questions and comments by the subjects, causing the dialogue to become rather unnatural, although confederates were still permitted to use the same kinds of gestures and backchannel cues (e.g., head nods) as used in the other FtF condition. In the contingent condition (labeled as “unscripted in the other report), confederates were allowed to use their own words and adapt to subjects' questions, while still trying to convey the same information contained in the script.

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

5


set of jackets, a flashlight, a knife, a map, a magnetic compass, one bottle of water for each survivor, a book titled "Edible Plants of the Desert," and a rearview mirror. This task was selected for this first round of research because it allows a fair amount of experimental control while still approximating features of normal conversation. Unlike some tasks that would stretch credulity among computer-savvy participants, it is also amenable to use in both HCI and CMC contexts (as well as immersive virtual environments, where additional extensions of the work are being conducted). In the current studies, participants first completed their own rankings of the 12 items then interacted with their partner (computer or human) in one of the seven conditions (to which they were randomly assigned). During this task discussion, participants and confederates alternated giving their rankings and reasons on each of the 12 items. To increase the sense of contingent turntaking, questions were used to elicit subject rankings and reasons, and the interaction concluded with confederates asking subjects if they had any further thoughts to offer. Confederate rankings and reasons were based on ones arrived at previously by groups of experts, although no special expertise was ascribed to the partner, and participants were encouraged to influence one another. Participants then reranked the items and completed the questionnaire containing the user assessments. The instructions, description of the Desert Survival Problem, initial rankings, post-rankings, and all other postmeasures were posted on the World Wide Web and collected via a Macintosh computer.

3.1. Procedure and Dependent Measures Decision quality, influence, and accuracy of information exchange. Decision quality, absolute influence, and relative influence were calculated from participants' rankings of the salvaged items prior to interaction ("prerankings") and following the interaction ("post-rankings"). Decision quality was measured as the mean absolute discrepancy between participant and confederate (expert) rankings on the twelve items. A small score thus indicates high decision quality, i.e., close correspondence to the expert rankings. Absolute influence was computed by calculating the absolute differences between (a) each subject pre-ranking and partner pre-ranking and (b) each subject post-ranking and partner postranking. Mean post-ranking differences were subtracted from mean preranking differences to arrive at the absolute distance subjects moved toward the confederate's position. A large score reflects high absolute influence, i.e., substantial shift. Relative influence was measured as the proportion of movement relative to the original distance between the

participant’s and partner’s rankings. The reasoning behind calculating this second measure was that, for some conditions, subjects might happen to start out closer to their partner's ranking than in others, due to chance. If the distance between rankings was small from the start there would be no possibility of a great shift towards the partner's rankings, in absolute terms. Accuracy of recall was assessed by asking participants to record the partner's ranking for the three top-ranked and three bottom-ranked items. It was scored as number of correct matches. Deviations from partner ranking--the absolute distance from actual partner ranking—were also calculated to capture close but not perfect matches. A small distance indicated high accuracy. Content understanding was measured by asking participants to paraphrase what they believed to be their partner's position and reasoning on the six middle-ranked items (selected because they might be less obvious and less biased by subjects' own preferences). These responses were rated by two independent coders (inter-rater reliability r = .92). Individual ratings were averaged to produce a single understanding score. Format assessment. The utility of the format was measured with four adjective pairs, rated on a scale from 1 to 7, taken from Moon and Nass [10]. Coefficient alpha reliability for these items was .78. Interaction assessments. To capture the range of possible perceptions that might correspond to interactional involvement and mutuality, participants rated perceived involvement, receptivity, and similarity with Likert-format items taken from the intimacy and similarity subscales of Burgoon and Hale’s [19] Relational Communication Scale. Coefficient alpha reliabilities were .71, .64, and .87 for involvement, receptivity, and similarity respectively. Additionally, we included Aron, Aron, and Smollan’s [20] pictorial instrument, which uses seven increasingly overlapping circles, to further tap into perceived connectedness. Perceived understanding was calculated from selected items from Cahn and Shulman’s [21] Feelings of Understanding/Misunderstanding Scale. Two separate scales, one for understanding and one for misunderstanding, are used. Alpha for the understanding scale was .80 while the misunderstanding scale produced an alphja of .74. Scores are calculated by subtracting the misunderstanding score from the understanding score. Partner assessments. Credibility was measured in the post-measure questionnaire as subject ratings of partner credibility along five dimensions: competence, character (which includes trust and honesty), sociability, dynamism, and dominance. Seven-interval semantic differential items were selected from previously validated measures developed by McCroskey, Hamilton, and Weiner

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

6


[22]; Burgoon, Johnson, and Koch [23]; Wheeless and Grotz [24]; and McCroskey and Young [25]. The competence subscale was comprised of adjectives such as intelligent, informed, experienced, and expert. The character subscale consisted of adjectives such as reliable, sincere, and truthful.4 The sociability subscale consisted of ratings of friendliness and likability. The credibility subscale of dynamism was also subdivided into two separate dimensions because previous research has found dominance to be a judgment relevant to computers [10]. The two subscales included adjectives related, respectively, to dominance and confidence and to dynamism, energy, and talkativeness. Inter-item reliabilities, calculated with Cronbach's alpha, were .81 for character, .75 for competence, .59 for dominance, .86 for sociability, and .68 for dynamism. Task attraction was measured with a combination of rating items from Moon and Nass's [10] questionnaire and items from the task attraction dimension of McCroskey and McCain’s [26] measure of interpersonal attraction (alpha = .79). As is true of all of the instruments used in this study, wording was modified where applicable to reference computers or humans. To measure how expected and desirable the partner’s behavior was judged to be, Burgoon and Walther's [15] Likert-format instrument assessing expectedness and evaluation was used (reliabilities = .71 and .86, respectively).

4. Results Study 1 Two kinds of analyses are reported here: (1) mean comparisons among the seven conditions on user ratings of their experiences and (2) correlations between user experiences and the outcome measures. The means are presented in Table 1; the contrast codes used to conduct statistical comparisons among them appear in Table 2. Table 3 presents the correlations among all the relevant measures. The technical details of the statistical analyses for the mean comparisons and correlations are reported here. In the Discussion section, these findings are merged with those from Study 2 and organized around the three classes of user assessments: format, interaction, and partner.

4.1. Comparisons among Conditions The means were compared via planned comparison procedures. The first comparison contrasted the contin4 Because this dimension included a number of facets that might or might not be relevant to computer agents, it was subdivided in the other report into items related specifically to truthfulness and other character-related items. Here, the original version of the scale is retained, due to the number of measures involved and the high intercorrelation between the two measures.

gent FtF condition to the average of the five computer interfaces (see Table 2 for contrast codes). The noncontingent face-to-face condition was eliminated from the comparison to HCI conditions because it produced such unnatural, artificial interaction that it would have produced an unfair test of FtF interaction. However, its differences from contingent FtF interaction are discussed below. The second comparison examined whether ordinal increases in anthropomorphism would produce corresponding “linear” increases or decreases in influence, decision quality, and credibility. Due to the exploratory nature of this study and the constraints that such a laborand computational-intensive experiment placed on obtaining a larger sample size, alpha was set at .10 (see [27], and [28], for more on this matter). Previous findings. It will be recalled that Bengtsson et al. [1] found computers to be more influential than humans, as evidenced by contrasts comparing the influence of computers, averaged across the five HCI conditions, to that of humans in the contingent FtF condition. Conversely, humans scored higher on several credibility dimensions than did computers. Although none of the planned comparisons were significant for recall or understanding, these measures were related to the credibility dimentions of competence, character, sociability, dynamism, and dominance, suggesting that credibility affected attention and information recall. Contrast tests failed to support the prediction that adding humanlike features to interfaces would produce monotonic increases in influence, credibility, or understanding. However, other contrasts revealed some other differences relevant to interface design. For example, computer agents were seen as more dominant in the text-only interface than the text-voice combination. Moreover, findings indicated (tentatively) that the addition of a still image reduced credibility compared to the average of text-only and text + voice conditions. Comparison of human and computer partners on user assessments. Contrast tests between FtF and HCI conditions were significant for four of the eight dependent:measures: perceived receptivity t(54) = 2.58, p < .05; feelings of understanding/misunderstanding, t(54) = 2.10, p < .05; expectedness t(54) = 3.30, p < .01; and evaluation, t(54) = 1.91, p < .07. FtF interaction created more sense of receptivity and being understood, and partner behavior was seen as more expected and desirable, than in the HCI conditions. Contingent FtF could therefore be characterized as a positive confirmation of expectations and as the condition most likely to create mutuality as well as credibility (discussed above). Interestingly, the noncontingent FtF condition received among the lowest ratings on both expectedness and evaluation, making it a case of a negative violation of expectations. Although

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

7


not statistically significant, partners received the lowest ratings on task attraction in both FtF conditions, a finding suggestive of participants viewing computers as more attractive to work with than humans, possibly because it was easier to get things done with the computer. On other measures such as utility, FtF was comparable to some of the HCI conditions. The contrast testing increased anthropomorphism produced significant results for three measures: feeling understood/misunderstood, F (1, 54) = 6.56, p < .05, perceived receptivity, F (1, 54) = 4.20, p < .05, and utility, F (1, 54) = 2.98, p < .10. The addition of more humanlike qualities to the interface created greater feelings of being understood, of receptivity on the part of the partner, and greater perceived utility. Additional comparisons among the computer conditions were conducted to explore other differences in interface design. Shown in Table 2, contrast 3 tested the effect of adding animation to the interface. Contrast 4 examined how adding a still image to text-based interfaces affected ratings. Contrast 5 explored the effect of adding voice to text. Contrast 6 investigated how interfaces with voice and animation are affected by the addition of text. Contrast 3 showed that the addition of animation increased participant’s feelings of being understood, t(54) = 1.83, p < .10. Utility was rated higher when animation was present (contrast 3), t(54) = 2.15, p < .05, and when text was coupled with synthesized voice and animation (contrast 6), t(54) = -2.21, p < .05. Contrast 4 for perceived receptivity revealed that the addition of still image reduced rather than enhanced perceived receptivity, t(26.5) = -1.86, p < .10.5 One possible explanation for this latter finding is that the partner went from the ideal (no visual data available) to the concrete.

4.2. Correlation Analysis Communication format assesstments. Utility was highly correlated with most measures. In addition to correlating positively with understanding, influence, and quality of decision-making, utility was positively associated with the agent or partner being viewed as more credible, dominant, similar, involved, desirable, and expected. Whether the usefulness of the format led to more positive assessments of the interaction and partner cannot be ascertained unequivocally from a correlational analysis. However, one might surmise that the combined features of the animated computer agent (text + voice + animation), which earned that interface the highest utility ratings, made the agent seem dominant, competent, and 5 Where variances for dependent measures were not equal across all groups, unequal variance t-tests were employed.

confident. These perceptions of credibility and potency may have led participants to be especially susceptible to their partner’s influence. Interaction assessments. The higher the perceived involvement during the interaction, the more the partner was rated as credible on all but the dynamism dimension. Moreover, involvement was positively correlated with utility, indicating that participants found the format more useful as involvement increased. However, involvement was unrelated to decision quality, influence, or understanding. Perceptions of receptivity were also positively associated with the sociability dimension of credibility but negatively related to the dominance dimension. If the partner was perceived as receptive during the interaction, the partner was subsequently rated as very sociable and nondominant. Additionally, greater receptivity was associated with more influence and content understanding. Thus, receptivity was a salient user judgment in predicting task outcomes. As for measures related to mutuality, greater perceived connectedness and feelings of being understood only correlated with sociability, i.e., these measures of mutuality corresponded to judgments of the partner as sociable, friendly, and likable. Similarity was positively related to the credibility judgments of sociability and character, as well as to decision quality. When participants felt their partners were similar to them, they not only rated the partner as more friendly, trustworthy, reliable, and so forth but also adopted final rankings more similar to the partner. Partner assessments. Task attraction was highly correlated with utility, influence, and decision quality. In other words, participants who saw their partners as more attractive to work with were more influenced by the partner and moved closer to the partner's recommended rankings. Also, participants reported higher attraction to agents whose behavior was seen as more desirable and who were perceived as more similar, involved, and receptive. Behaving in an expected fashion conferred more credibility on the partner in terms of competence and dominance but lowered assessments of the partner’s character, sociability, and dynamism. Partners who were judged most desirable overall were ones who were seen as least sociable. Thus, gains on interpersonal judgments related to friendliness and sociability came with corresponding losses on other task-related judgments, a not uncommon trade-off in task-focused contexts. Finally, of the credibility dimensions, the one with the strongest relationship to other outcomes was competence. Partners who were judged as more competent exerted more absolute and relative influence, elicited decisions more closely aligned with the expert rankings. They also produced greater understanding and better recall

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

8


of the rankings and arguments they presented. In short, competence was associated with higher performance on all the outcome measures. Dynamism was also associated with greater accuracy of recall. Though dominance did not relate directly to the outcome measures of interest, it was indirectly related in that greater dominance was associated with greater utility and involvement, while nondominance was associated with greater receptivity. Dynamism was seen as unexpected, whereas dominance was rated as both expected and desirable.

5. Method Study 2 Study 2 was designed to examine human-human interaction under various mediated and nonmediated conditions. Because the noncontingent FtF condition in Study 1 had created interaction patterns that were unnatural and unrealistic, it was eliminated in Study 2. In its place, we created an offset control group in which two naïve participants conducted the same task face-to-face. This condition was intended to serve as a benchmark for how users would conduct and experience this task when permitted to interact freely in the absence of experimental controls on the communication process itself. The other two conditions represented contingent, unmediated FtF interaction and contingent CMC among co-located participants, respectively. Like computerized group support systems, the latter condition retained the proximity of FtF interaction but introduced mediation in the form of text-based interaction. Participants sat beside one another but could not talk during completion of the task.

5.1. Participants and Confederates Participants (N = 68) were undergraduate students, equally divided between males and females, at the University of Arizona, USA, recruited from organizational communication courses that are largely populated by business and public administration students. They were compensated with class credit in exchange for their participation. Confederates were one male and one female undergraduate student in communication who were of similar age and attractiveness. Confederates received extensive training and conducted numerous practice sessions to insure that they maintained consistency in verbal and nonverbal performance between confederates and across sessions.

5.2. Experimental Conditions, Procedures, and Measures The experimental task, instructions, and measures were identical to those from Study 1, except that the content understanding data were not obtained due to a pro-

gramming malfunction in the sequencing of the Web pages. All task instructions, the description of the task, and pre- and post-interaction questionnaires were delivered via computer. Interactions were videotaped, with participant consent, through one-way mirrors at the research site. Upon arrival at the experimental site, participants entered a waiting room where they filled out consent forms, were given preliminary information regarding the experiment, and were introduced to a same-sex partner. Participants were randomly assigned to (a) the face-to-face control group, in which two naive participants conducted the task orally and face-to-face, with no restrictions placed on the content, pace, or length of interaction; (b) contingent face-to-face interaction, in which participants were paired with a same-sex confederate who followed the script as closely as possible but was given the latitude to respond to questions, concerns, or digressions initiated by the participant; or (c) computer-mediated communication, in which participants were paired with a confederate and conducted the discussion via a synchronous online chat program included with Microsoft Workgroups for Windows, v. 3.11. This condition most closely approximated that of computerized group support systems in which participants are co-located and conduct discussions, brainstorming, balloting, and the like via their keyboards. Confederates followed the script closely but were allowed to respond quickly and relevantly to contingencies initiated by the participant. Participants and partners were seated at a table in front of a small computer terminal and keyboard. Computers and chairs were positioned obliquely toward one another so that interactants could see one another easily but were still visible frontally through the one-way mirror. The computers were angled so that neither the confederate nor the participant could see each other’s terminal. After receiving preliminary instructions from an experimental assistant, interactants were instructed to turn to their respective computers to read and respond to the Desert Survival Problem (see Study 1). Upon completion of the initial set of rankings, participants were instructed to begin discussion either face-to-face or via the chat program. The assistant left the room to observe and videotape the discussion from an adjacent observation room. At the completion of discussion, participants completed the Web-based questionnaires; confederates feigned responding so as to conceal their true roles. Participants were then debriefed and thanked for their participation.

6. Results Study 2

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

9


6.1. Modality Comparisons Three nonorthogonal but planned comparisons were conducted for each of the dependent measures: the control group vs. the two experimental conditions, CMC vs. the average of the two FtF conditions, and the experimental FtF condition versus CMC.6 Means appear in Table 4. Control vs. experimental groups. Partners in the experimental conditions were more influential than those in the control condition on both influence measures, t(64) = -2.56, p < .05, and t(64) = -2.68, p < .01, for absolute and relative influence respectively. They were also perceived as more dominant, t(64) = -2.04, p < .05. Conversely, partners in the control condition were perceived as more receptive than those in the two experimental conditions, t(64) = 1.64, p = .10, perhaps because, relative to the naïve participants in the control group, the confederate partners in the two experimental conditions offered knowledgeable, “expert” reasons for their rankings. This might have conveyed less openness to alternative viewpoints but also would account for the greater influence the confederates exerted. Mediated vs. nonmediated FtF discussions. The contrasts comparing CMC to the two FtF conditions produced significant results on three measures. Partners in the mediated condition were rated as more competent, t(64) = 2.17, p < .05, involved, t(64) = 2.21, p < .05, and attractive as task partners, t(64) = 2.20, p < .05, than those in the FtF conditions. Partners in the mediated condition also tended to be more influential than those in the FtF conditions, t(64) = 1.70, p < .10 (on absolute influence). When the CMC condition was compared just to the experimental FtF condition, however, only perceived involvement and task attraction were significantly different, t(64) = -1.89, p < .10, and t(64) = -2.12, p < .05. In both cases, CMC earned higher ratings. Although not significantly different, some other mean differences merit comment because they might become significant with a larger sample size. Decision quality, absolute influence, and relative influence were all higher in the two experimental conditions than the control condition, again probably reflecting the greater expertise conveyed by the confederates, but the two conditions did not differ from one another. The CMC condition was also less expected (but not negatively so) and achieved the same level of connectedness, similarity, and sociability as the control group did. In sum, the CMC condition did not suffer on interpersonal judgments related to involvement, mutuality, and credibility and in fact gained on task-related perceptions and actual

6 The second contrast is nonorthogonal to the first but was included in case the two FtF conditions were highly homogeneous.

performance relative both to the control group and, in some cases, the unmediated FtF condition.

6.2. Correlations Among Dependent Measures Most of the dependent measures were correlated (see Table 5). Our analysis focuses on assessments of the format, interaction, and partner. Utility of communication format. Utility was again an important indicator of how partners were assessed, as all dimensions of credibility were positively and strongly correlated with it. In turn, competence was highly associated with both measures of influence, as was dominance. Although correlational analysis makes it difficult to assess direction of influence, the associations imply an important but complex relation between the utility of the format and the degree to which partners were influential. Interaction assessments. The associations between interaction assessments, task outcomes, and partner assessments are reflected in Table 5. An examination of the correlations between interaction assessments (perceived involvement, perceived receptivity, feelings of understanding, perceived connectedness, and similarity) and measures of influence and decision quality revealed no significant associations (r=.20 or less). The correlations between the interaction assessments and measures of credibility dimensions, however, revealed a series of significant associations. All of the interaction assessments were significantly associated with competence, character, and sociability, with the magnitude of the correlations ranging from .22 to .47. Perceived involvement, feelings of understanding, and perceived connectedness were also significantly associated with dynamism (ranging from r=.22 to r=.43) while only perceived involvement was significantly associated with dominance (r=.51). Partner assessments. The associations between partner assessment measures (credibility, task attraction, expectedness, and evaluation) and measures of task outcomes revealed significant associations for three partner assessments (see Table 5). Competence, dominance, and task attraction were each significantly associated with both measures of influence as well as decision quality (ranging from r=-.28 to r=.33). Correlations between the credibility dimensions and other social judgments were also examined. As expected, all of the credibility dimensions were intercorrelated. The results also indicated that all of the credibility dimensions were significantly associated with expectedness and evaluation (ranging from r=.24 to r=.43) while competence, character, and sociability were each associated with task attraction (.48, .36, .28, respectively).

7. Discussion

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

10


The rapid and pervasive diffusion of new communication technologies is revolutionizing the workplace, bringing with it such potential benefits as greater and more rapid access to information, formation of virtual communities, and enhanced decision-making. These innovations, while opening up entirely new forms and arenas for communication, also carry such potential risks as misunderstandings, distrust, and poor decision-making if used without regard for their suitability to different goals and tasks or their impact on interpersonal relationships between users. Designers and users are becoming increasingly aware that without attention to the communication between users, the most brilliant and innovative technologies can be constrained by users who fear it, avoid it, misuse it, subvert it, or misapply it. Conversely, they may achieve unanticipated benefits if users creatively adapt them to meet their own and their organization’s objectives. The pair of studies presented here begins to systematically address these issues by examining user perceptions of various communication formats they utilize, the interactions in which they participate, and the partners with whom they interact. Each of these are discussed below.

7.1. Assessments of Communication formats The primary variable of interest in assessing the communication formats was utility, or the degree to which the interface was useful. We proposed that the more useful the format, the more likely it is to produce better task outcomes. Specifically, the higher the utility of the interface, the better the decision quality, influence, accuracy of understanding, and credibility. The results of the two studies presented here provide some support for these assertions. Utility was significantly associated with decision quality and one measure of influence (relative influence) but only in the first study; utility was also not significantly associated with accuracy of understanding which was assessed only in the first study. Utility, however, appears to play an important role in judgments of credibility and other social characteristics. In both studies, utility was strongly associated with judgments of competence, character, sociability, and dominance, indicating that the degree to which a communication format is perceived as useful has a direct bearing on user perceptions of their partner. The results of Study 1, examining the impact of increases in anthropomorphism, support the notion that increases in anthropomorphism are perceived as useful by indicating that users rated animated computer agents as being of higher utility than other agents. Additionally, in direct comparison between the conditions using animation, users rated the

combination of text, voice and animation as most useful overall. Computer agents were also perceived more positively when the communication format was perceived as more useful. Specifically, the more useful the format, the more the computer agents were judged competent, sociable, dominant, and higher in character. Furthermore, agents were also seen as more similar, involved, desirable, and their behavior more expected when utility of the interface was rated high. The results from Study 2, examining the impact of mediation and contingency, lends further support to the importance of interface utility. Utility again was strongly associated with each of the judgments presented above, indicating that increased utility may bestow some benefits upon agents and/or human partners in the form of more positive judgments. It appears that the favorable reactions to a communication format spill over into more global good feelings about partners and the interaction itself. The converse is also true: Adverse reactions to a format will generalize to the task process and participants.

7.2. Assessments of the Interaction We further reasoned that increases in inter-activity should produce more positive user perceptions of the interaction process itself . Study 1 examined the impact of inter-activity, in the form of anthropomorphic increases, on interaction assessments. A comparison of conditions revealed that increases in anthropomorphism were accompanied by an increased sense of receptivity, although the addition of a still image reduced rather than enhanced perceived receptivity. Thus, it is not the case that any human-like addition will do. There must be a strong human resemblance if benefits are to be realized. A similar finding surfaced in terms of feelings of understanding. Increases in anthropomorphic qualities yielded higher levels of feeling understood, with the animation conditions rated higher than those without. The richness condition of animation and voice plus text, while richer is not as anthropomorphic. This finding is particularly important because it reveals that it is the increase in anthropomorphic qualities and not simply richness that is responsible for the effects. We were also interested in the associations between assessments of the interaction and task outcomes. To this end, we predicted that user perceptions of involvement and feelings of understanding, should be positively associated with decision quality, influence, accuracy of understanding, and judgments of partner’s credibility. Overall, the results from both studies provided mixed support for these predictions. Only receptivity was significantly associated with absolute influence (only in Study 1); involvement, connectedness, similarity, and feelings of understanding were not significantly associ-

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

11


ated with decision quality, influence, and accuracy of understanding in either study. However, both studies provided strong support for the association between involvement and mutuality with judgments of partner credibility. Involvement was strongly associated with judgments of competence and character in both studies, with the magnitude of the associations larger in Study 2. Study 2 also produced significant associations between involvement and sociability and dynamism. Furthermore, the three measures of mutuality were each significantly associated with sociability in both studies, with additional significant associations in Study 2 with competence, character, and dynamism (excluding receptivity). Taken together, these results appear to provide some support for increased inter-activity, manifested in the form of involvement and mutuality producing more positive user perceptions of interaction outcomes, although these outcomes appear to be more socially-oriented than task-oriented. It appears, then, that increased involvement and mutuality, are important concerns when users are interesting in creating long-term working relationships and less important when the primary goal is to complete a task in the short-term with little or no anticipated future interaction. In situations such as the latter, increases in these features may actually hinder rather than aid in the accomplishment of task outcomes.

7.3. Assessments of the Partner Based on the Bengtsson et al. [1] study, the associations between credibility and other social judgments and outcomes were also examined in order to investigate the relationship between partner assessments and task outcomes. The results were fairly consistent across both studies. The associations between competence and decision quality as well as both measures of influence were significant in each case, indicating that judgments of one’s partner as competent, across conditions, play a central role in successful task performance. Task attraction was also significantly associated with each outcome. This combination of findings seems to indicate that subjects who are more attracted to their partner are more influenced by them and end up closer to their partner’s recommended rankings. Combined with other social judgments (see Tables 2 and 5), these findings also reveal that higher task attraction is associated with partners whose behavior is seen as more desirable and who are seen as more involved, receptive, and useful. One notable exception between the two studies involved the associations between both dominance and dynamism and task outcomes. The results of Study 1 for dominance revealed no significant associations between these variables. However, in Study 2 a distinctly differ-

ent pattern emerged: dominance was significantly associated with decision quality and both measures of influence. Dynamism was also associated with better decision quality, but only for Study 1. These results appear to point to differences in the type of agent as being instrumental in these assessments. Specifically, computer agents perceived as dynamic (Study 1) and human partners perceived as dominant (Study 2) produced higher quality decisions. In order to evaluate the “black sheep effect,” we examined the associations between expectedness, evaluation, and the task outcomes. Overall, expectedness of behavior was unrelated to any of the task outcomes, where the evaluation of that behavior was related to decision quality (Study 1). High levels of expected behavior, however, were seen as more credible in terms of competence and dominance but rated lower on character, sociability, and dynamism (Study 1), thus unexpected behavior may have positive social consequences. Further evidence of this can found from examining the means for the expectedness and evaluation measures from Study 1. The condition with the highest level of anthropomorphism, the text-voice-animation condition, yielded the lowest expectedness rating, yet was evaluated the highest and found to be the most attractive of the computer conditions. Higher evaluation was also related to more positive partner judgments of all of the credibility dimensions in Study 2 while, in Study 1, computer agents were perceived as more competent and dominant yet of lower character and less dynamic and sociable.

7.4. Implications for HCI Interface Designers How does one design the "better" interface? Interface designers ought to be concerned with facilitating clear and accurate information exchanges, efficient transactions, and high-quality collaborative work. Therefore, the solution for designers is to understand how features of computer interfaces relate to features of the interaction between human users or between human user and computer agent and then match the interface design to the desired outcomes. Our results suggest that choice of interface design is influenced by the outcomes one wishes to emphasize for human participants in computer interactions. Three global outcomes stand out as most relevant: passive involvement, collaboration, and relationship building. Optimal matching of these outcomes to computer interfaces leads to better task outcomes and partner assessments of credibility. Interface designers have a variety of options to incorporate into new interfaces, such as animated agents, yet these options are not always matched to the desired task and social outcomes. In the case of passive involvement, the participant is cast as a receiver of information but takes little or no role in creating it. In addition, the par-

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

12


ticipant is not expected to be influential in the sense that his or her contributions will affect the nature of the encounter. This situation might be desirable when the goal is to have the partner merely receive information (e.g. from a web search engine) or when interaction needs to take place over a fairly short period of time (e.g., time press) and the likelihood of users being mislead is low. For those interested in fostering passive involvement, interfaces need only have text-based interfaces or text-based with audio, since they tend not to foster complete involvement. (This statement applies only to HCI, since text-based CMC doesn't produce the same effects.). A common example would be a university library database for students to search for books or journal articles. Incorporating anthropomorphic options into an interface for the sake of including them will not create a "better" interface. Quite the opposite, our findings suggest that mismatching of the interface with the task reduces utility and task outcomes. Collaborators, on the other hand, are more or less equal partners who are expected to participate actively in generating information and knowledge, and whose contributions are consequential for how the encounter proceeds. Interfaces fostering an increased sense of involvement and mutuality would be an optimal design for humancomputer collaboration, such as in assisting in the decision making process. Anthropomorphic interfaces incorporating animated characters, speech synthesis or artificial intelligence are more appropriate when collaborative encounters are desired inasmuch as participants take a more active role in the interaction. Such interfaces also are rated high in utility and promote the most attraction for the task outcome. Finally, relational building concerns creating and maintaining useful and positive assessments of interactional partners. Anthropomorphic interfaces would seem appropriate for relational building because respondents tend to rate their partners and interactions higher when more human features are provided. To date, this type of computer interface is still an unachieved goal except in the futuristic prophesies of MIT computer scientist Michael Dertouzos [29] and the virtual butler in Apple Computer's famous Knowledge Navigator video. Undoubtedly, advancements in computer technology will increase the capabilities of computers to use more anthropomorphic features. The challenge for interface designers is to resist the temptation of burdening the user with an overloaded interface not matched to the desired task or outcome.

be presented at the Hawaii International Conference o n Computer and Systems Sciences, Maui, HI. January 1999. [2] N. Nohria and R.G. Eccles, Networks in organizations: Structure, form and action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1992. [3] J.B. Walther, “Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction”, Communication research, vol. 23, pp. 3-43 1996. [4] J.B.Walther and J.K. Burgoon, “Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction” Human Communication Research, vol. 19, pp. 50-88, 1992. [5] M. Lombard and T.B. Ditton, “At the heart of it all: The concept of presence”, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol. 3, (http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/), 1997. [6] L. Suchman, Plans and situated actions: The problem o f human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987 [7] J.K. Burgoon, D.B. Buller, K. Floyd, and R. Viprakasit, Interactive deception: Effects of dialogue and relational familiarity on interpersonal interaction and outcomes, Paper submitted for publication, 1998. [8] R.M. Krauss, and S.R. Fussell, “Mutual knowledge and communication effectiveness”, In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, and C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 111-145,1990. [9] S. Kiesler, L. Sproull, and K. Waters. “A prisoner’s dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and humanlike computers”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 70, pp. 47-65, 1996. [10] Y. Moon, and C. Nass, “How “real” are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types i n human-computer interaction”, Communication Research, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 651-674 1996. [11] C. Nass, B.J. Fogg, and Y. Moon, “Can computers be teammates?”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 45, pp. 669-678, 1996. [12] R.P.Hart, Seducing America: How television charms the modern voter, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994. [13] J. Perrolle, Computers and social change: Information, property, and power, Wadsworth Pub. Co, Belmont, CA, 1987. [14] J.K. Burgoon, “A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test”, Human Communication Research, vol. 4, pp. 129-142. 1978. [15] J. K. Burgoon, and J.B. Walther, “Nonverbal expectancies and the consequences of violations” Human Communication Research, vol. 17,pp. 232-265, 1990. [16] E.E. Jones, “Interpreting interpersonal behavior: The effects of expectancies”, Science, vol. 234, pp. 41-46, 1986. [17] J.K. Burgoon, “Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication”, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 30-48, 1993.

References [1] B. Bengtsston, J.K. Burgoon, C. Cederberg, J. Bonito, and M. Lundeberg, The impact of anthropomorphic interfaces on influence, understanding, and credibility. Paper t o

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

13


[18] J.K. Burgoon, and B.A. Le Poire, “Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior”, Human Communication Research, vol. 20, pp. 75-107, 1993. [19] J.K. Burgoon, and J.L. Hale, “Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication”, Communication Monographs, vol. 54, pp. 19-41, 1987. [20] A. Aron, E.N. Aron, and D. Smollan, “Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 63, pp. 596-612, 1992. [21] D.D. Cahn, and G.M. Shulman, “The perceived understanding instrument” Communication Research Reports, vol. 1, pp. 122-125, 1984. [22] J.C. McCroskey, P.R. Hamilton, and A.M. Weiner, “The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction”, Human Communication Research, vol. 1, pp. 42-52, 1974. [23] J.K. Burgoon, M. Johnson, and P. Koch, “The nature of interpersonal dominance”, Communication Monographs, i n press. [24] L.R. Wheeless, and J. Grotz, “The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure”, Human Communication Research, vol. 3, pp. 250-257, 1977.

[25] J.C. McCroskey, and T.J. Young, “Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades”, Speech Monographs, vol. 41,pp. 261-266, 1981. [26] J.C. McCroskey, and T.A. McCain, “The measurement of interpersonal attraction”, Speech Monographs, vol. 41, pp. 261266, 1974. [27] J. Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988. [28] M.W. Lipsey, Design sensitivity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990. [29] M.L. Dertouzos, What will be : how the new world of information will change our lives. HarperEdge, San Francisco, CA, 1997. [30] J. Beskow, Regelstyrd vistuell talsyntes [Rule-based audiovisual speech synthesis], Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Speech, Music, and Hearing, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden. [31] M. Lundeberg. Multimodal talkommunikation—utveckling av en testmiljo [Multimodal speech communication—development of a test environment], Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Speech, Music, and Hearing, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.

.

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

14


Table 1. Means for partner assessment, interaction assessment, and influence measures by modality richness Modality Richness text only Absolute Influence Relative Influence Decision Quality Accurate Recall (Deviation from Partner Ranks) Accurate Recall (Total) Understanding Competence Character Sociability Dominance Dynamism Utility Perceived Involvement Perceived Receptivity Similarity Perceived Connectedness Feeling Understood Task Attraction Expectedness Expectedness Evaluation Evaluation Note. N = 70.

text+voice

text+voice+ still 1.02 .24 3.23 5.20

voice+ ani- text+voice+ mation animation .91 .86 .21 .23 3.24 3.15 5.80 5.10

FtF noncontingent .98 .22 3.34 .

FtF contingent .51 .12 3.54 4.30

.80 .20 3.14 5.70

1.09 .26 2.87 5.10

3.00

3.00

3.40

3.50

2.80

.

3.30

4.80 4.74 4.89 4.60 5.35 4.63 4.87 5.35

5.00 4.49 4.71 4.05 4.60 4.03 4.60 4.75

5.10 4.78 4.84 3.75 4.95 3.77 4.80 5.45

5.18 5.03 4.79 4.05 5.40 3.97 4.87 5.60

4.88 4.88 5.04 4.10 5.35 4.13 5.73 5.10

. 4.46 4.62 4.65 4.95 4.13 4.67 5.40

5.08 5.06 5.09 5.10 4.80 4.77 5.07 4.70

2.70

2.90

2.00

2.70

2.90

2.50

3.80

3.47 1.80

3.90 2.10

3.53 1.80

3.83 2.40

3.97 3.00

3.40 2.40

3.80 3.20

.62

.74

.47

1.09

1.19

.62

1.55

4.68 4.06 4.06 4.22 4.22

4.96 4.14 4.14 4.28 4.28

4.61 3.70 3.70 3.78 3.78

4.88 3.74 3.74 3.94 3.94

5.29 3.46 3.46 4.56 4.56

4.04 3.42 3.42 3.82 3.82

4.40 5.06 5.06 5.04 5.04

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

15


Table 2. Contrast coefficients for media comparisons

Contrast

text only

text+voice

1 2 3 4 5 6

-2 -5 -2 -1 -1 0

-2 -2 -2 -1 1 0

text+voice+ still -2 -1 -2 2 0 0

voice+ animation -2 1 3 0 0 1

0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE

text+voice+ animation -2 2 3 0 0 -1

FtF unscripted 5 5 0 0 0 0

16

Designing Interfaces to Maximize the Quality of Collaborative Work

Designing Interfaces to Maximize the Quality of Collaborative Work

Suggest Documents

Designing Collaborative User Interfaces for

Designing Collaborative User Interfaces for Ubiquitous Applications ...

3D User Interfaces for Collaborative Work - CiteSeerX

Designing ocean acidification experiments to maximize inference

designing to maximize value for multiple ... - The Design Society

3D User Interfaces for Collaborative Work - Semantic Scholar

Designing Search User Interfaces

Designing Interfaces to Experience Interactive ... - ISEA 2015

Designing Classrooms to Maximize Student Achievement - Institute for ...

Designing Air-Distribution Systems To Maximize Comfort - Ashrae

Designing Classrooms to Maximize Student Achievement - Institute for ...

Collaborative User Interfaces - Google Sites

Designing volunteers' tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and ...

Building Collaborative Graphical interFaces in the Audicle

Designing to Support Collaborative Scientific Research Across

Designing Collaborative Networks

Building Collaborative Graphical interFaces in the Audicle

Designing Navigation for Web Interfaces

Designing Collaborative Interactive Spaces

Designing Collaborative Processes

Designing Mobile Interfaces - Google Sites

Collaborative Cross-Modal Interfaces - School of Electronic ...

Using Political Skill to Maximize and Leverage Work Relationships

Designing Peer-to-Peer Distributed User Interfaces - University of ...