See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316709058

Through the Looking Glass: The Effects of Feedback on Self-Awareness and

Conversational Behaviour during Video Chat

Conference Paper · May 2017

DOI: 10.1145/3025453.3025548

CITATIONS READS

54 1,820

5 authors, including:

Matthew K. Miller Regan L. Mandryk

University of Saskatchewan University of Saskatchewan
14 PUBLICATIONS 469 CITATIONS 246 PUBLICATIONS 11,746 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Max Birk
Eindhoven University of Technology
70 PUBLICATIONS 1,925 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Max Birk on 26 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

Through the Looking Glass: Effects of Feedback on

Self-Awareness and Conversation during Video Chat
Matthew K. Miller, Regan L. Mandryk, Max V. Birk, Ansgar E. Depping, and Tushita Patel
Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5C9, Canada
{firstname.lastname}@usask.ca
ABSTRACT distributed work teams [23], to conduct job interviews [52],
Video chat is a popular form of computer-mediated to support online test-taking [60], and in remote
communication in a range of contexts from online job psychotherapy [11].
interviews to chatting with friends. Although seeing your
own video feedback is the predominant interface design, The predominant interface design of video chat systems
self-awareness research suggests that seeing oneself could provides people with feedback from their own camera –
induce self-consciousness and affect interaction. We usually presented as a small picture-in-picture window.
created a custom video chat application and asked pairs of However, previous work has suggested that people may not
strangers to engage in an online personal information necessarily want video feedback during a conversation, but
exchange task with or without video feedback. Feedback would prefer to see feedback only if their face left the frame
increased self-awareness and the use of socially-focused [37] or at the beginning of a call to adjust their position in
words, and decreased the use of words expressing certainty. the frame [40]. It can be distracting to see yourself in video
In addition, mixed-gender dyads rated themselves as more chat [13], and even more distracting to be in a conversation
socially orientated with feedback than without, which was in which the other person is clearly watching themselves
reflected in an increased use of inclusive pronouns and rather than paying attention to the feed of you.
affiliation words, and fewer words expressing discrepancy. It is not surprising that seeing oneself in video chat can be
However, with feedback, same-gender dyads reported disconcerting or distracting – although it is the status quo in
greater task orientation than mixed-gender dyads – reflected video-based communication, seeing oneself is not the status
in increased use of task-relevant words. We discuss design quo in face-to-face communication. Researchers have
implications in contexts from remote therapy to online shown that allowing people to see their reflection in a
dating. mirror can increase sensitivity to negative feedback in a
Author Keywords social interaction [18]. These negative effects of seeing
Video chat; self-awareness; feedback; gender; CMC; yourself are attributed to an increase in a participant’s self-
CSCW awareness [18], which can facilitate aggressive behaviour in
angered people [9], thwart intrinsic motivation [44], and
ACM Classification Keywords decrease self-esteem [25]. The research using mirror
H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces manipulations suggests that seeing oneself in a video chat
INTRODUCTION interface could induce self-awareness and affect resulting
Video chat has become a popular mode of computer- communication. The end result of increased self-awareness
mediated communication between geographically- could be beneficial in some contexts and harmful in others;
distributed people – for example, it connects grandparents for example, seeing oneself can increase spontaneous self-
to their remote grandchildren [20], lets distributed friends disclosure [27], which could be beneficial in a remote
chat with each other [7, 41], fosters intimacy between therapy application, but harmful in a remote job interview.
romantic partners [39], and keeps families connected [1]. In Given the prevalence of video chat in both the personal and
addition to cultivating personal relationships, video chat is professional aspects of our lives, and given that the
used in a range of professional contexts, such as in dominant paradigm in video chat interfaces is to have visual
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for feedback of oneself, in this paper we investigated whether
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are seeing oneself affected self-awareness in a video chat.
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies Furthermore, we investigated how seeing oneself affected
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for
both the interaction between pairs of participants and the
components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to resulting conversation. We created a custom browser-based
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission video chat system that displayed no feedback of the
and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org. participant or picture-in-picture feedback. We connected
CHI 2017, May 06-11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA pairs of strangers online and presented them with a personal
© 2017 ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4655-9/17/05…$15.00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025548 information exchange task in one of the two feedback
interfaces. We gathered subjective measures on

5271
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

participants’ perceived relational communication and 41]. In addition to being used to build and maintain
transcribed the audio to perform semantic analysis on the personal relationships, video chat is increasingly being used
conversations themselves. in a range of professional contexts, such as in distributed
work teams [23], to conduct job interviews [52], to support
Our results show that video feedback increased self-
online test-taking [60], and even in remote psychotherapy
awareness and perceived relational affection and depth.
[11].
However, it also increased the use of anxiety-related words
and decreased the use of words expressing certainty. In Feedback in Video Chat
addition, mixed-gender dyads rated themselves as having People who use modern video chat systems such
more social orientation with feedback than without. This Microsoft’s Skype, Google’s Hangouts, and Apple’s
was reflected in their conversations as an increase in Facetime are accustomed to seeing a small preview of their
inclusive pronouns and words expressing affiliation, and a own camera feed as part of the chat interface. In addition to
decrease in words expressing discrepancy. The same- this layout being the default interface design, none of these
gender dyads rated themselves as being more task oriented video chat programs offer users an option to disable video
than the mixed-gender dyads when feedback was provided. feedback (we tested the most recent version of these
This task focus of the same-gender dyads was reflected in applications on all the available mobile and desktop
an increased use of interrogative terms (e.g., ‘what’, ‘how’) platforms). This is consistent with some findings that a
and ‘you’-centric words with feedback than without – their majority of users prefer to see a preview of themselves
task was to engage in an information exchange, thus the during video chat [1311]. It has also been suggested that
increased use of these words suggests greater task focus video feedback could help increase eye contact, important
(i.e., asking the other participant questions about for establishing interpersonal trust [4].
themselves). However, other research has cast doubt on the necessity of
We make several contributions. First, we show that visual constant visual feedback during video chat. Microsoft
feedback in video chat interfaces increases self-awareness researchers working on NetMeeting technology found that
and affects a person’s perceived ability to relationally users only wanted video feedback to adjust their positioning
communicate. Second, we show that visual feedback at the start of a call [40]. Research conducted by Hewlett
increases social accommodation in conversation – Packard similarly showed that most users prefer to see
particularly for mixed-gender dyads. Reduced expressions feedback only if their face leaves the frame, rather than all
of conviction and discrepancy and increased expressions of the time [37]. This was reflected in Hewlett Packard’s Halo
social affiliation suggest that participants were more video conferencing system, which used a large installation
concerned with how others perceived them when they could that fixed the cameras, seating, and environment in each
see their own video feed. Third, we discuss how the Halo room, meaning that users were always within the
increased conversational accommodation when feedback camera frame. The system provided no video feedback to
was provided – particularly for mixed-gender dyads – has users during the chat [41].
implications for the design of video chat interfaces in Outside of the context of video chat, feedback has been
contexts from remote therapy to online dating. manipulated for a variety of reasons. For example, in
A simple choice in interface design – whether or not to exploring suitable VMC interfaces for online test-tasking,
show visual feedback – influences how we view ourselves Wegge [60] found that increasing the size of video
in a social interaction and how we engage in a social feedback caused people high in test anxiety to perform
conversation. Video-based communication is becoming a worse on an oral exam taken over video conference. And
common way for people separated by distance to several studies have removed the video feedback
communicate in both personal and professional contexts; affordance; for example, to hide an experimental
our interface design choices have the power to influence manipulation [56], to avoid negative effects during
how online relationships are formed and fostered. behavioral tele-health interventions involving inmates with
mental illness [31], to ease anxiety about appearing on
RELATED WORK
camera in the context of learning over a distance [28], and
We present research on feedback in video chat and on how
to avoid negative effects for patients with body image
feedback may affect self-awareness for different people.
disorders in remote psychotherapy [34].
Video Chat
Video-mediated communication (VMC, which we Although almost all modern systems afford video feedback,
sometimes refer to as video chat) has become a popular its use was less consistent in early video chat solutions.
mode of technology-mediated communication between Some had it turned off by default [40], while others
geographically-distributed people – for example, it connects provided it as an option that obscured the remote video
grandparents to their grandchildren who live in different entirely, as it was meant as a temporary preview [55].
cities [20], supports intimacy between romantic partners
[39], and lets distributed friends chat with each other [7,

5272
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

Gender, Video Chat, and CMC be manipulated), it is referred to as self-awareness [17].

There are general differences between men and women in Increased private self-focus tends to intensify and crystalize
terms of behavior during video chat; for example, when affect, motives or standards that are salient to an individual.
adjusting cameras, women adjust the camera to show more Conversely, public self-focus heightens a person’s
of themselves in the field of view than men [57]. Female perception of themselves as subject to the evaluation of
pairs in a negotiation task over video chat appeared to show others – thus they experience appraisal apprehension and
higher levels of trust [54] as well as a language of fairness may attempt to modify their behavior to meet the
and acknowledgment [5352], compared to male pairs. expectations of others, even if these expectations are
These differences extend beyond video chat and suggest incongruent with their own individual standards [21].
that gender composition affects how users interact with
Inducing Self-Awareness
each other through computer-mediated communication
Although self-consciousness is a personality trait,
(CMC).
situational self-awareness can be induced in a variety of
In a decision task that was performed over email, female- ways. For example, by hearing a recording of your own
only groups sent more words per message, were more voice [61], seeing your image in a mirror [25], being in the
satisfied with the group process and reported higher levels presence of video cameras [61], or being in front of an
of group cohesion than male-only groups [47]. Generally, audience that makes eye contact with you [50]. Laboratory
these differences between gender groups appear to be studies that induce heightened self-awareness often use
driven by the fact that male-only groups show lower mirror manipulations. For example, Carver [9] used a
participation than mixed or female groups [48]. Male mirror manipulation on a sample of participants who
behavior in dyads appears to be affected by the gender of condoned punishment and found that the presence of the
their interaction partner. For example, men appear to be mirror increased the intensity of an electric shock that
more likely to become friends with women than men on participants administered to a confederate. The authors
Facebook; women on the other hand show no bias towards explained that the mirror manipulation directs attention
any gender in their likelihood of friendship [59]. toward the self, and that increased self-awareness facilitates
Comparing mixed-gender and same-gender groups in a aggression in angry people by making them more aware of
problem solving task showed that men in mixed-gender their angry affect. Interestingly, the presence of a mirror did
conditions talked significantly more than men and women not affect the shocks that were administered by those who
in the same-gender condition [38]. Overall a mixed-gender do not condone punishment. In mirror manipulations,
composition appears to significantly affect the dynamic of a researchers tend to justify the presence of the mirror with a
dyad. Investigating the effect of gender composition in cover story; however, in the case of video chat, the presence
dyads performing a negotiation task showed that mixed- of the video feedback is expected and does not need to be
gender dyads outperformed same-gender dyads; the authors explained or justified. Because mirror manipulations have
argue that mixed-gender compositions lead to higher levels been used to induce both public self-awareness (generally
of cooperation and information sharing [54]. Mixed gender using full-length mirrors) and private self-awareness
pairs appear to like each other more and exhibit higher (generally using small mirrors of the face and head) [21], it
levels of self-disclosure in computer-mediated interactions is presently unclear what effect video feedback will have on
[29]. Pairing people with someone from the opposite gender self-awareness in the context of video chat.
appears to strongly effect the dynamics of the subsequent
Effects of Self-Awareness
interaction. When people are more self-aware, they become more
When asking what the underlying factors are that influence conscious of their own presence, attributes, and emotions
our interactions with each other over video chat, the gender [10]. Carver and Scheier [10] demonstrated that in the
of the participant and the nature of the gender pairing (i.e., presence of a mirror, participants low in trait self-
same or mixed) appears to be an important factor. consciousness completed sentences with more self-focus
than external-world focus. Mirror manipulations have also
Self-Awareness
been shown to thwart intrinsic motivation, as they involve a
To understand how feedback affects our interactions over
controlling form of external regulation [44]. Self-attention
video chat, we must consider how seeing ourselves affects
generated through praise [3] appears to increase the effort
our self-focus. Self-focus has both a private and public
made by participants, but can impair skilled performance.
dimension: public self-focus includes attention to the
This negative effect of self-awareness in not surprising as
aspects of the self that are able to be perceived by others
previous research has shown that people high in the self-
(e.g., physical appearance, mannerisms); whereas private
consciousness trait (which often shows effects similar to
self-focus includes attention to internal and personal
manipulating self-awareness) are more susceptible to
features that cannot be perceived (e.g., memories, feelings)
choking under pressure due to the increased conscious
[8]. When self-focus is dispositional (i.e., a stable
attention to the self that disrupts automatic execution [2].
personality trait), it is referred to as self-consciousness;
however, when self-focus is situational (i.e., a state that can

5273
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

Self-awareness in Social Interactions data. We used node.js to host the webpages and other
Self-awareness also affects our interactions with others. In content for the video chat website. Both Kurento Media
1959, Goffman [16] argued that when an individual is Server and node.js ran on an Ubuntu 14.04 server.
interacting with another and attending fully to that Participants were asked to complete the task using Chrome
interaction, then things progress smoothly; however, if that or Firefox browsers, which support the WebRTC standard.
individual instead becomes focused on themselves, then
Video Chat Task
their attention and concern could be shifted away from the
The video chat client page featured a large preview of the
interaction itself toward how that interaction will be
remote partner’s video, and a smaller preview of the local
perceived by others. This increased concern with how one
user’s video, which is configurable in our system. Beside
is being perceived could greatly affect the interaction
the video was a small text block, which was synced
between two individuals. Fenigstein [18] tested this idea
between both participants. This allowed us to present
and showed that increasing self-awareness (using a mirror
discussion questions to participants as they chatted. During
manipulation) of two female participants increased
the video chat, participants were presented with common
responsiveness to the evaluations of others – specifically, it
icebreaker questions. The questions used were: What do
heightened negative response to negative evaluation and
you like to eat on your pizza?; What is your favorite
increased positive feedback to positive evaluations. In the
animal?; What do you like best about your favorite animal?;
context of CMC, Joinson [27] manipulated self-awareness
Would you rather go on a beach holiday or a mountain
by presenting a video feed of a participant on their own
holiday?; If you could go visit any place in the world,
display – this video was not transmitted anywhere – and
where would you go?; If you could live in any period of
showed that increased private self-awareness, combined
history, when would it be?; If you could have dinner with
with lower public self-awareness increased spontaneous
one person – dead or alive – who would it be?; Do you
self-disclosure during a text chat. In our research, we
think it is better to see the future or change the past?;
manipulate self-awareness by presenting feedback of the
Would you rather be invisible or be able to read minds?; If
participant in the video chat interface and measure the
you could learn any skill, what would it be?; If you could
impact on communication.
have one superpower, what would it be?; Would you rather
EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM AND SETUP always feel too cold or always too hot?; If your house was
We created a custom browser-based video chat system and burning down, what object would you try to save?; If you
connected pairs on strangers in an online experiment either were at a restaurant and found a fly in your soup, what
with feedback of themselves or without. Our work was would you do?; What’s the weirdest thing you have ever
guided by our five main research questions: eaten?; What is the best present you ever received?; If you
RQ1. Does seeing themselves increase self-awareness? won $10000, what would you spend it on?; Would you
rather eat a banana or an apple?; and Would you rather
RQ2. Does seeing themselves affect their perceived ability
wrestle a lion or fight a shark?. We created the list from a
to relationally communicate?
variety of online sources of social icebreaker questions as
RQ3. Does seeing themselves affect the conversation
itself? well as including our own questions. The questions were
RQ4. Do subjective differences resulting from visual designed to facilitate conversation; however, we did not
feedback depend on the type of dyadic pairing? include questions that were very personal in nature or
RQ5 Does seeing themselves differentially affect the inward-facing (e.g., What do you really like about yourself?
conversations of same- or mixed-gender pairings? What is your earliest memory?). We did not want to induce
self-awareness through the questions themselves, as
System participants were likely to progress through the discussion
To study how people react to seeing their own video topics at different paces.
feedback, we needed a system that allowed us to manipulate
the feedback interface and present the participants with
discussion topics. Further, we needed a system that worked
within a web browser to give us flexibility in testing with
online participants who have different systems and setups.
Modern browsers support the WebRTC standard, which
facilitates interoperable, standards-based peer-to-peer data
transfer. This allows for the creation of native video chat
software on the web. However, a peer-to-peer architecture
does not lend itself to recording the video data, which we
needed for subsequent analyses. To enable recording the
videos, we used Kurento Media Server [19]. Kurento Media
Server can establish WebRTC connections to multiple
Figure 1. The video chat system with the optional local
clients and act as a go-between, which also records all the preview turned on.

5274
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

A “next” button allowed users to move on to the next Participants

question when they were ready. When participants clicked We recruited 110 participants through Amazon’s Mechanical
the ‘next’ button, the system advanced to the next question Turk (MTurk), which connects requesters of tasks with paid
for both the local and remote participants. Once either user workers online. MTurk has been shown to be reliable as a
clicked the “next” button, it was disabled for 20 seconds; recruitment tool for research in human-computer interaction
this feature helped pace the conversation and we included a [32]. To remove participants who did not carefully complete
sufficient number of questions so that participants would the surveys from further analyses, we identified careless
not run out of topics before the conversation time ran out. responses by response time, response patterns and
After 8 minutes of conversation, a warning was shown that consistency metrics as suggested by Maede and Craig [35].
the video chat would be ending soon and they should say First we removed participants who completed three or more
goodbye. We included this feature after pilot studies questionnaires with an average response time per item under
revealed that participants sometimes connected with each 1.5 seconds (N=10), identifying those who just clicked
other during the chat and wanted a chance to wrap up the through without paying attention to the items. Second we
conversation and say goodbye. After a further 20 seconds, looked for zero variance cases, identifying participants who
the video chat ended and users were redirected to the post- took their time but answered all items in the same manner,
study surveys. indicating noncompliance (N=0). Third we calculated the
variance within each subscale and removed participants who
Experiment Conditions
demonstrated responses more than three standard deviations
Our experiment was designed to study the effects of video
above the mean variance on three or more subscales (N=13).
feedback. Participants were placed in pairs, and each pair
Using these methods, we removed a total of 23 participants
was assigned to one of the two feedback conditions. In the
from subsequent analyses. After outliers were removed, 87
feedback condition, participants had feedback of
participants (50 female) were included in further analyses.
themselves during the video chat (see Figure 1), whereas in
Participants received compensation of $10 USD and the
the second condition, they had no feedback. Both members
study took an average of 25.79 minutes to complete. Ethical
of a pair were always in the same condition (either both
approval was obtained from the University of Saskatchewan
received feedback or they both did not).
behavioral research ethics board, and participants were asked
Instruments to give informed consent at the beginning of the task. To
We used two main scales to evaluate subjective experience. comply with ethical guidelines, the task was only available to
Both were measured on a 7-point Likert scale from workers from the USA who were at least 18. Additionally,
Disagree Strongly to Agree Strongly. only workers with an approval rate above 90% were offered
Situational Self Awareness Scale
the task as a means of quality control.
The Situational Self-Awareness Scale [21] is a 9-item scale Procedure
that measures self-awareness along three dimensions: Participants completed the experiment remotely on the web.
private, public, and surroundings. Public self-awareness Participants first read about the study and provided informed
measures how much people are concerned about the way consent. Participants then verified the system requirements,
others are viewing them, e.g., “Right now I am self- and were shown a preview of their own webcam to verify
conscious about the way I look”. Private self-awareness that audio and video were working correctly and they were
measures the consciousness of a person’s own thoughts and visible in the picture. Figure 2 shows this verification
feelings, e.g., “Right now, I am aware of my innermost interface. After verifying the requirements, participants were
thoughts”. Self-awareness of surroundings measures a forwarded to a lobby page where they waited for a partner to
person’s awareness of their environment, e.g., “Right now, chat with. When a partner was found, they were forwarded to
I am conscious of what is going on around me”. This scale the previously-described video chat page. Following the
has been used to measure state changes in self-awareness, video chat, they completed the experience questionnaires
for example, as a result of using a mirror manipulation [21]. (i.e., self-awareness and relational communication). They
Relational Communication Scale
also completed demographic questions and we gathered
The Relational Communication Scale [15] measures several several validated scales on traits known to interact with self-
aspects of a conversation. We included the following sub- awareness (i.e., personality [22], basic psychological needs
scales, which were assessed through 50 items: Involvement, satisfaction [14], self-consciousness [49], and self-monitoring
Affection, Similarity, Depth, Receptivity, Composure, [30]); however, these trait scales were not used in subsequent
Formality, and Task versus Social Orientation. The first five analyses in this paper.
constructs relate to the intimacy of the conversation. The
scale asked users to rate their own actions in the
conversation, rather than their partner’s, e.g., “I was
interested in what he/she had to say”.

5275
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, F-values, and p-values

for the two feedback conditions and the tests of main effects.

Figure 2. Checking requirements and camera setup.

Data Analyses
Survey data were aggregated within a participant for each
individual construct.
Audio files were transcribed and then processed with the
Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) tool for semantic
analysis [43]. Rather than including the complete LIWC
categories, we included categories that relate to anxiety,
social orientation, agreement, and gender (i.e., affect, positive
emotions, negative emotions, anxiety, pronouns, I, we,
she/he, they, social, affiliation, negate, compare, interrogate,
discrepancy, tentative, certainty, difference, assent, female,
male) as related literature suggests that social orientation and
agreement could be affected by self-awareness [17]; whereas,
the gendered words could be affected by the gender pairing.
Data were analyzed with SPSS 24. We conducted
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) with video
feedback (on, off) and gender pairing (same-gender, mixed-
gender) as between-subjects factors on the dependent
measures related to subjective experience (i.e., self-
awareness, relational communication), and the semantic
categorization of the conversation content (see previous
paragraph). Alpha was set to 0.05.
RESULTS
Increased self-awareness has been shown to increase
sensitivity to the feedback of others in social interactions [18]
– and because a social conversation depends on people being
responsive to their partner – it is likely that self-awareness
will affect the nature of the resulting conversation.
We expect that providing feedback will increase the self-
awareness of participants in a similar manner to the mirror
manipulations used in self-awareness research that showed
increases in private self-awareness [27, 21]. We expect that
increased self-awareness will affect the subjective
perceptions of participants’ own conversational ability. In
addition, we expected that increased self-awareness from Effects of Feedback
displaying video feedback would change the conversation We first looked at how seeing feedback of themselves
itself, which we operationalized with the semantic affected participants’ conversations. Table 1 shows the
categorization of the words used. means, standard deviations, F values, and p values for the
main effect of feedback on all measures.

5276
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

RQ1. Does seeing themselves increase self-awareness? increased with feedback, e.g., “mate”, “talk” (F1,79=4.3;
We expected that seeing themselves would affect p=.042, η2=.05). These results suggest that seeing feedback
participants’ self-awareness similar to the mirror of themselves increased their social accommodation – their
manipulations that were used in [21]. The MANOVA conversation became more social in content, and they
showed a main effect of feedback on situational self- decreased their use of terms expressing certainty. It also
awareness (F1,83=11.4; p=.001, η2=.12) and a marginal effect suggests that seeing themselves resulted in increased
on private self-awareness (F1,83=3.9; p=.052, η2=.05). No expression of anxiety; it is unclear whether they were feeling
effect was found on public self-awareness (F1,83=.01; more anxious or simply expressing their anxiety more. All
p=.921). The effect showed that self-awareness was higher other semantic categories were not significantly different
when feedback was visible, confirming our expectations that between feedback conditions (see Table 1).
being able to see themselves would increase the self- 0.4 2 * 12 *

awareness of video chat participants. *

0.4 10
1.6
0.3
0.3 0.2
* 0.1
6 * 1.2
0
8
Anxiety
0.2 6
5 0.8
4
4 0.1
0.4
2
3
0 0 0
2 Anxiety Certainty Social Words

1 Feed visible Feed not visible

SA of Surroundings Private SA Public SA
Figure 5. Mean (±SE) of the word counts from LIWC, *p<.05.
Feed visible Feed not visible
Effects of the Dyadic Pairing
Figure 3. Mean (±SE) responses for the three self-awareness Previous literature on video chat has suggested that gender
(SA) scales (1-7, where 7 is higher agreement), *p≤.05. dyad pairings can play a role in CMC, for example, that
mixed-gender dyads had more self-disclosure in text chat
RQ2. Does seeing themselves affect their perceived ability to [29]. We expected that the dyadic pairing would affect the
relationally communicate?
interaction; however, we were more interested in how video
The MANOVA showed main effects of feedback on
feedback would differentially affect dyads, depending on
conversational affection (F1,83=4.1; p=.046, η2=.05) and their gender pairings.
conversational depth (F1,83=7.4; p=.008, η2=.08).
RQ4. Do subjective differences resulting from visual
The effects show that both affection and depth were higher feedback depend on the type of dyadic pairing?
when feedback was visible. Recall that they were rating their There was a significant interaction of pair type (i.e., same-
own contribution to the conversation, suggesting that seeing gender, mixed-gender) and feedback on task versus social
themselves helped participants feel more capable of orientation (F1,83=4.6; p=.036, η2=.05). No other scales
communicating affection to their partner and speaking about showed a significant interaction. Pairwise comparisons
topics in depth, rather than at a shallow level. There were no show that for same-gender dyads, there was no difference in
main effects of feedback on relational similarity (F1,83=.72; their task orientation depending on feedback; however, for
p=.397), involvement (F1,83=.42; p=.518), or social mixed-gender dyads, showing the feed of themselves
orientation (F1,83=1.8; p=.184). resulted in a significant increase in social orientation. This
* increased social orientation over task orientation for mixed-
6 *
gender dyads implies that those participants were more
5 oriented toward socializing than completing the assigned
4
task, which should also be reflected in the conversation
3
itself.
2
1 *
Affection Depth 5 *
Feed visible Feed not visible
4

Figure 4. Mean (±SE) responses for the affection and depth 3

subscales (1-7, where 7 is higher agreement), *p≤.05.
2
RQ3. Does seeing themselves affect the conversation itself? 1
The MANOVA showed a main effect of feedback on several Mixed-gender Same-gender
semantic categories. Specifically, visual feedback increased Feed visible Feed not visible
the use of words related to anxiety, e.g., “worried”, “fearful”,
(F1,79=5.5; p=.021, η2=.07) and decreased the use of words
Figure 6. Mean (±SE) responses for task versus social
that express certainty, e.g., “always”, “never” (F1,79=4.4;
orientation (where 1 is task and 7 is social orientation),*p<.05.
p=.040, η2=.05). The use of social-facing words also

5277
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

Figure 7. Mean (±SE) of the significant interactions of gender pairing (mixed vs same) and feedback on word counts, p<.05.

RQ5. Does seeing themselves differentially affect the

social orientation over task orientation when visual
conversation of same-gender or opposite-gender pairings?
The MANOVA showed several interactions of gender feedback was present. This social orientation was reflected
pairing and feedback presentation on the semantic in their reduced use of expressions of discrepancy and
categories. Opposite-gender dyads (who reported being increased use of expressions of social affiliation.
more socially-oriented when feedback was provided) Fifth, the same-gender dyads showed more task focus when
exhibited a higher use of words expressing affiliation, e.g., feedback was provided, which was reflected in their greater
“friend”, “social” (F1,79=7.5; p=.007, η2=.09) when use of task-related words with feedback than without.
feedback was present. They also had a significantly higher
Explanation of Findings
use of “we” (F1,79=4.6; p=.035, η2=.06) and “they” Our results show increases of social accommodation –
(F1,79=4.5; p=.037, η2=.05) when feedback was present, operationalized by increases in subjective ratings and
suggesting a social orientation. Furthermore, their use of conversational behaviour – when participants saw video
words that indicate discrepancy, e.g., “could”, was lower feedback during conversation. These results suggest that
(F1,79=6.0; p=.017, η2=.07) when feedback was present. participants were more concerned about how others
Same-gender pairs showed no difference in the use of those perceive them when they could see themselves. Literature
words depending on whether or not feedback was shown. on self-focus and self-awareness provides explanations for
On the other hand, same-gender dyads used more why we are more concerned about how we are perceived
interrogational, e.g., “how”, “when, words (F1,79=4.6; when we see feedback of ourselves. Goffman [16] theorized
p=.036, η2=.06) when feedback was present and used “you” that if an individual who is interacting with another is
more frequently (F1,79=7.0; p=.010, η2=.08) when feedback attending fully to that interaction, then conversation will be
was present. Because our task was to engage in an smooth; however, if that individual instead becomes self-
information exchange task, the increased use of these words focused, then their attention could be shifted away from the
suggests a greater focus on the task at hand (i.e., asking the interaction and toward how that interaction will be
other participants questions about themselves). There were perceived by their interaction partner. Fenigstein et al. [17]
no other significant interactions between feedback and showed this effect experimentally – i.e., when attention is
dyad. directed toward the self, the concern with how one is being
perceived by others increases; in contrast, when self-
DISCUSSION attention is low, feedback from others is not as important.
We summarize our findings, situate them in literature, In our video chat experiment, we see this concern for how
discuss their implications for the design of video chat others perceive us in multiple ways: partners become more
interfaces, and present opportunities for future work. socially focused and accommodating; they express greater
Summary of Findings affiliation and less conviction.
We have several important findings. This increased presentation concern is expressed most
First, we found that visual feedback in video chat interfaces notably in the results of our mixed-gender dyads, who
increases self-awareness. displayed the greatest social accommodation and social
orientation. Previous work has shown that presentation
Second, visual feedback increases a person’s perceived concern (through increased private self-awareness,
ability to relationally communicate. combined with lower public self-awareness) increases the
Third, visual feedback increases social accommodation, as propensity for spontaneous self-disclosure in a text chat
seen in reduced expressions of certainty and greater use of [27] and also that mixed-gender pairs exhibit greater self-
socially-focused expressions. disclosure in text-based communication [29]. Although we
did not explicitly test for self-disclosure, the reduced use of
Fourth, this increased social focus is particularly strong for interrogatives and the reduced use of the 2nd person pronoun
the mixed-gender dyads, who had increased ratings of

5278
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

‘you’ in mixed-gender dyads in the video feedback self-directed attention adds to the cognitive load and makes
condition suggests that participants in mixed-gender dyads them less likely to spot – and thus even more exposed to –
have been talking more about themselves. impression management strategies.
It may seem counterintuitive that seeing oneself ultimately Customer Service
increases social accommodation; however, research in self- Customer service and technical support services are
awareness theory helps to explain how self-directed beginning to transition from audio–only communication to
attention translates into being concerned about how others video chat. Our results suggest that the person providing the
perceive us. By facilitating self-presentation concerns, self- service or support would benefit from seeing their video
directed attention is ultimately expressed as social feedback, as it would facilitate social accommodation. In
accommodation – people form expectations about how they the context of providing services to a frustrated client,
are perceived by others and start to unconsciously greater social accommodation by the service provider may
accommodate to these implicit expectations [18]. ensure that clients feel heard and assisted.
Implications for Design Online Dating
Providing video feedback in video chat interfaces increases Online dating is a rapidly-growing platform that connects
self-awareness and increases self-directed attention. This strangers seeking new relationships with each other through
has implications for the design of video chat interfaces – computer-mediated communication [51]. Communication
manipulating self-awareness and performance concerns as a patterns in online dating, however, expose some very
result of self-directed attention can be leveraged for benefit troubling trends regarding harassment and inappropriate
in some interaction contexts, but may be harmful in others. approaches of men towards women. In the United States,
42% of female users have been contacted by someone in a
Video-Mediated Communication
way that made them feel harassed or uncomfortable [51].
There are several ways in which increased self-directed
These behavioral patterns can be linked to the differential
attention affects video-mediated communication (VMC).
social norms stemming from anonymity in the online
Previous work has not examined how seeing oneself affects
environment [45]. Online dating platforms predominantly
conversation in a video chat context. Our work shows
use text chat, which lacks any self-awareness-inducing
interesting effects on both the conversation itself and on
feedback. In this domain, design that induces self-
how people perceive their relational communication.
awareness might encourage users to adhere to the social
However, the effects of our results depend on the
norms they would follow in face-to-face interactions and
interaction’s context.
exhibit more pro-social behaviours, which would ultimately
Distributed Teams facilitate conversation and potentially improve online
Distributed teams allow companies to connect knowledge interactions.
workers from all over the world. Over the course of a
Remote Psychotherapy
project, team members have different communicational
Maladaptive forms of heightened presentation concern as a
needs, which would differently benefit from including
result of increased self-awareness have been tied to mental
visual feedback of the participants. In the beginning, it is
disorders, e.g. social-anxiety, eating disorder, and drug
important to create social bonds and facilitate trust and
abuse [26, 6, 36]. A common approach for people suffering
group cohesion between teammates [58]. Self-awareness
from anxiety is attentional retraining [24], which trains
induced through video feedback might create a more
people to shift attention away from negative to neutral
sociable atmosphere that facilitates group cohesion. In later
cognitions and actually helps to reduce self-directed
phases of the group work, planning and implementations of
attention [12]. Supporting these systems to vary self-
strategies take priority; thus, no feedback might be the more
awareness would allow participants to contrast experienced
suitable design as increased self-awareness might detract
anxiety as a result of self-directed attention under feedback
from the participant’s problem solving abilities [58].
and no-feedback, providing them with valuable tools for
Job Interviews managing anxiety. Moreover, in the context of remote
The increase in remote and distributed work has also therapy, conducted with an online psychotherapist over
increased the demand for remote job interviews using video video chat [11], our findings support the idea that the
communication [5, 52]. Interviewing over video-mediated presence of visual feedback for both the patient and the
communication technology is less expensive than bringing therapist must be carefully considered to avoid
candidates in for an in-person interview, and allows an unintentional self-directed attention.
organization to evaluate a greater range of candidates. One
Limitations and Future Work
concern of organizations is the ability of interviewers to
Our study reveals several interesting findings, but also
spot impression management strategies (e.g., flattery) used
opens the opportunities for future work.
by the applicants; interviewers with high trust and low
cognitive ability are less likely to spot deceptive strategies Our study used a personal information exchange task
[46]. Our results suggest that increased self-awareness between strangers over Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.
might be harmful for interviewers, because the increased Participants were prompted to have a conversation by

5279
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

asking each other questions. This is a specific use context eyetracker would have compromised the ecological validity
and we expect that results may depend on both the context of people engaging in VMC in the familiar environment of
and task. their own homes. Furthermore, extending our results by
showing how video chat interface design affects subsequent
First, our same-gender dyads were comprised of two
task performance, trust facilitation, or feelings of intimacy
females or two males interacting. Previous work on
would provide a translation of our results, and aid in our
communication in dyads suggests that patterns are different
understanding of how technology-mediated communication
when the pair is comprised of two men or two women [54].
patterns affect our collaborative work and relationships.
We could not investigate the breakdown of the same-gender
dyads at the level of male dyads or female dyads, due to our CONCLUSION
sample size; however, this is an important avenue for future Video-based communication is becoming a common way
work. for people separated by distance to communicate in both
personal and professional contexts; however, the status quo
Second, we collected data on the traits of participants, such of providing participants with a video preview of
as their personality, self-consciousness and degree of self- themselves is in direct contrast to how our face-to-face
monitoring. Again, our sample of participants is not large interactions are structured. Including video feedback in our
enough to consider the between-subjects effects of feedback study tended to increase the attention that participants
and gender pairing, while also integrating individual directed towards themselves, increasing their awareness of
differences into our analyses. Future work should consider themselves as social beings, and increasing their concern
the differential effects of video feedback on people with for how they were being perceived by their partner. The
different personalities, and levels of self-efficacy, self- looking glass self refers to our self-view that is shaped by
monitoring, and life satisfaction. our understanding of how others perceive us [33]. In video-
Third, the increased social accommodation from video mediated communication, who we see when we peer into
feedback was likely useful in the context of a personal the looking glass can be affected by interface design
information exchange; however, the reduced use of choices as a simple as whether or not to provide video
expressions of certainty and discrepancy are likely not feedback. As video chat increasingly governs our
helpful in the context of problem-solving, brainstorming, interactions with others over a distance in domains from
negotiating, or other task-focused exchanges. We would online dating to customer service and remote psychotherapy
like to explore how feedback affects communication in to job interviews, we must acknowledge the influence that
other tasks – particularly those that benefit from interface designers have over how our online social
participants feeling permitted to disagree with each other interactions unfold, how we see ourselves as a result of
and express confidence in their opinions. these interactions, and ultimately how we build and
maintain relationships online.
Fourth, our manipulation connected two strangers. It is
possible that results would differ for interactions between ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
people with various pre-existing relationships. We would We thank members of the interaction lab for support, our
like to explore how the design of video chat interfaces MTurk participants for their devotion to focused
affects communication between friends, romantic partners, participation in online experiments, the anonymous
family members, or co-workers. reviewers for valuable comments, and NSERC (SWaGUR,
USRA, and CGS-M) for funding.
Fifth, our manipulation used dyads. There are complex
interactions that occur in group conversations, and it is REFERENCES
unclear how our results extend into remote communication 1. Morgan G. Ames, Janet Go, Joseph ‘Jofish’ Kaye, and
involving more than two parties. Mirjana Spasojevic. 2010. Making love in the network
closet: the benefits and work of family videochat. In
Sixth, our experiment was conducted with a particular user Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer
group – workers on Mechanical Turk. We found that our supported cooperative work. 145-154.
participants used this shared connection in their http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718946
conversation and often talked about their work on 2. Roy F. Baumeister. 1984. Choking under pressure: self-
Mechanical Turk. However, we were paying people to be consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on
part of our experiment and extending our findings into skillful performance. Journal of personality and social
volitional participation in the context of personal or psychology. 46, 3, 610-620.
professional communication is of interest to us. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610
Finally, we demonstrate results in terms of participants’ 3. Roy F. Baumeister, Debra G. Hutton, Kenneth J. Cairns
subjective ability to communicate and in conversation 1990. Negative effects of praise on skilled performance.
behavior. Although we would have liked to record the gaze Basic and applied social psychology. 11, 2, 131-148.
of participants to determine how much they looked at their http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1102_2
own video feed, conducting the study in a lab with an

5280
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

4. E Bekkering and J.P Shim. 2006. Trust in communication. Communications Monographs, 66, 1,
videoconferencing. Communications of the ACM. 49, 7, 49-65.
103-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1139922.1139925 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376462
5. Nikki Blacksmith, Jon C. Willford, and Tara S. Behrend. 16. Goffman Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in
2016. Technology in the Employment Interview: A everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor. 1-17.
Meta-Analysis and Future Research Agenda. Personnel 17. Allan Fenigstein, Michael F. Scheier, Arnold H. Buss.
Assessment and Decisions. 2, 1, 2. 1975. Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment
6. Susan M. Bögels, Wendy Rijsemus, and Peter J. De and theory. Journal of consulting and clinical
Jong. 2002. Self-focused attention and social anxiety: psychology. 43, 4, 522-527.
The effects of experimentally heightened self-awareness http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076760
on fear, blushing, cognitions, and social skills. Cognitive 18. Allen Fenigstein. 1979. Self-consciousness, self-
Therapy and Research. 26, 4, 461-472. attention, and social interaction. Journal of Personality
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016275700203 and Social Psychology. 37, 1, 75-86.
7. Jed R. Brubaker, Gina Venolia, and John C. Tang. 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.75
Focusing on shared experiences: moving beyond the 19. Luis López Fernández, Miguel París Díaz, Raúl Benítez
camera in video communication. In Proceedings of the Mejías, Francisco Javier López, José Antonio Santos.
Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 96-105. 2013. Kurento: a media server technology for
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317973 convergent WWW/mobile real-time multimedia
8. Arnold H. Buss. 1980. Self-consciousness and social communications supporting WebRTC. In World of
anxiety. Freeman. Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks
9. Charles S. Carver. 1975. Physical aggression as a (WoWMoM). 1-6.
function of objective self-awareness and attitudes toward http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WoWMoM.2013.6583507
punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 20. Ryoko Furukawa, and Martha Driessnack. 2012. Video-
11, 6, 510-519. mediated communication to support distant family
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.9.1576 connectedness. Clinical nursing research. 22, 1, 82-94.
10. Charles S. Carver and Michael F. Scheier. 1978. Self- http://dx/doi.org/10.1177/1054773812446150
focusing effects of dispositional self-consciousness, 21. John M. Govern and Lisa A. Marsch. 2001.
mirror presence, and audience presence. Journal of Development and validation of the situational self-
Personality and Social Psychology. 36, 3, 324-332. awareness scale. Consciousness and cognition. 10, 3,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.3.324 366-378.
11. Helen Christensen, Kathleen M. Griffiths, Andrew J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2001.0506
Mackinnon, Kanupriya Kalia, Philip J. Batterham, Justin 22. Samuel D. Gosling, Peter J. Rentfrow, William B.
Kenardy, Claire Eagleson, and Kylie Bennett. 2010. Swann. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five
Protocol for a randomised controlled trial investigating personality domains. Journal of Research in personality.
the effectiveness of an online e health application for the 37, 6, 504-528.
prevention of Generalised Anxiety Disorder. BMC http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
psychiatry. 10, 25. 23. Zixiu Guo, John D’ambra, Tim Turner, and Huiying
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-10-25 Zhang. 2009. Improving the effectiveness of virtual
12. Josh M. Cisler and Ernst HW Koster. 2010. Mechanisms teams: A comparison of video-conferencing and face-to-
of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: face communication in China. IEEE Transactions on
An integrative review. Clinical psychology review. 30, 2, Professional Communication. 52, 1, 1-16.
203-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2008.2012284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003 24. Yuko Hakamata, Shmuel Lissek, Yair Bar-Haim,
13. Jose Eurico de Vasconcelos Filho, Kori M. Inkpen, Jennifer C. Britton, Nathan A. Fox, Ellen Leibenluft,
Mary Czerwinski. 2009. Image, appearance and vanity Monique Ernst, Daniel S. Pine. 2010. Attention bias
in the use of media spaces and video conference modification treatment: a meta-analysis toward the
systems. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international establishment of novel treatment for anxiety. Biological
conference on Supporting group work. 253-262. psychiatry. 68, 11, 982-990.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1531674.1531712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.021
14. Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. The 25. William John Ickes, Robert A. Wicklund, C. Brian
“what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and Ferris. 1973. Objective self awareness and self esteem.
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 9, 3, 202-
inquiry. 11, 4, 227-268. 219.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90010-3
15. James Price Dillard, Denise Haunani Solomon, Mark T. 26. Rick E. Ingram. 1990. Self-focused attention in clinical
Palmer. 1999. Structuring the concept of relational disorders: review and a conceptual model. Psychological
bulletin. 107, 2, 156-176.

5281
Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.156 39. Carman Neustaedter and Saul Greenberg. 2012.

27. Adam N. Joinson. 2001. Self- disclosure in computer- Intimacy in long-distance relationships over video chat.
mediated communication: The role of self- awareness In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
and visual anonymity. European journal of social Factors in Computing Systems. 753-762.
psychology. 31, 2, 177-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207785
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.36 40. Chris Nodder, Gayna Williams, Deborah Dubrow. 1999.
28. Kathleen Dodge Kelsey. 2000. Participant interaction in Evaluating the usability of an evolving collaborative
a course delivered by interactive compressed video product—changes in user type, tasks and evaluation
technology. American Journal of Distance Education. methods over time. In Proceedings of the international
14, 1, 63-74. ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640009527045 work. 150-159.
29. Sara Kiesler, David Zubrow, Anne Marie Moses, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/320297.320314
Valerie Geller. 1985. Affect in computer-mediated 41. Kenton O’Hara, Alison Black, and Matthew Lipson.
communication: An experiment in synchronous 2006. Everyday practices with mobile video telephony.
terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human
Interaction. 1, 1, 77-104. Factors in computing systems. 871-880.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0101_3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124900
30. Richard D. Lennox and Raymond N. Wolfe. 1984. 42. Kenton O’hara, Jesper Kjeldskov, Jeni Paay. 2011.
Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Blended interaction spaces for distributed team
Personality and Social Psychology. 46, 6, 1349-1364. collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1349 Interaction (TOCHI). 18, 1, 3.
31. Philip R. Magaletta, Thomas J. Fagan, Mark F. Peyrot. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1959022.1959025
2000. Telehealth in the Federal Bureau of Prisons: 43. James W. Pennebaker, Ryan L. Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and
Inmates’ perceptions. Professional Psychology: Kate Blackburn. 2015. The development and
Research and Practice. 31, 5, 497-502. psychometric properties of LIWC2015. UT
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.31.5.497 Faculty/Researcher Works.
32. Winter Mason, and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting http://dx.doi.org/10.15781/T29G6Z
behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. 44. Robert W. Plant and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic
Behavior research methods. 44, 1, 1-23. motivation and the effects of self- consciousness, self-
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 awareness, and ego- involvement: An investigation of
33. Lisa McIntyre. 2013. The practical skeptic: Core internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality. 53,
concepts in sociology. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. 3, 435-449.
34. Paul McLaren, Chris J. Ball, A. B. Summerfield, J. P. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/bf00995170
Watson, M. Lipsedge. 1995. An evaluation of the use of 45. Barbara A. Ritter. 2012. Say that to my face: Factors
interactive television in an acute psychiatric service. inherent to the online environment that increase the
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 1, 2, 79-85. likelihood of harassing and prejudicial behavior.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357633X9500100203 Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education. 5, 25-
35. Adam W. Meade, and S. Bartholomew Craig. 2012. 42.
Identifying careless responses in survey data. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2044-
Psychological methods. 17, 3, 437-455. 9968(2012)0000005005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028085 46. Nicolas Roulin. 2016. Individual Differences Predicting
36. Tanna M.B. Mellings and Lynn E. Alden. 2000. Impression Management Detection in Job Interviews.
Cognitive processes in social anxiety: The effects of Personnel Assessment and Decisions. 2, 1, 1.
self-focus, rumination and anticipatory processing. 47. Victor Savicki, Merle Kelley, Dawn Lingenfelter. 1997.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 3, 243-257. Gender, group composition, and task type in small task
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00040-6 groups using computer-mediated communication.
37. April Slayden Mitchell, Mary G. Baker, Chen Wu, Computers in Human Behavior. 12, 4, 549-565.
Ramin Samadani, Dan Gelb. 2010. How do I look? An http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(96)00024-6
evaluation of visual framing feedback in desktop video 48. Victor Savicki, Merle Kelley, Benjamin Ammon. 2002.
conferencing. Tech. Rep. HPL-2010-175, HP labs. Effects of training on computer-mediated
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2010/HPL-2010- communication in single or mixed gender small task
175.pdf groups. Computers in Human Behavior. 18, 3, 257-269.
38. Anthony Mulac. 1989. Men’s and women’s talk in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00048-6
same-gender and mixed-gender dyads: Power or 49. Michael F. Scheier and Charles S. Carver. 1985. The
polemic?. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Self- Consciousness Scale: A Revised Version for Use
8, 3-4, 249-270. with General Populations. Journal of Applied Social
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8983006 Psychology, 15, 8, 687-699.

5282
 Improving Video Communication CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02268.x Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human

50. Michael F. Scheier, Allan Fenigstein, Arnold H. Buss. Interaction. 312-319.
1974. Self-awareness and physical aggression. Journal http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952289
of Experimental Social Psychology. 10, 3, 264-273. 57. Cameron Teoh, Holger Regenbrecht, David O’Hare.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90072-9 2012. How the other sees us: perceptions and control in
51. Aaron Smith and Maeve Duggan. 2013. Online dating & videoconferencing. In Proceedings of the 24th
relationships. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference.
52. Susan G. Straus, Jeffrey A. Miles, and Laurie L. 572-578.
Levesque. 2001. The effects of videoconference, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2414536.2414624
telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and 58. Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen. 1977.
applicant judgments in employment interviews. Journal Stages of small-group development revisited. Group &
of management. 27, 3, 363-381. Organization Management. 2, 4, 419-427.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
53. Xiaoning Sun, Susan Wiedenbeck, Thippaya 59. Shaojung Sharon Wang, Shin-Il Moon, Kyounghee
Chintakovid, Qiping Zhang. 2007. Gender talk: Hazel Kwon, Carolyn A. Evans, Michael A. Stefanone.
differences in interaction style in CMC. In IFIP 2010. Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 215-218. friendship on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_17 26, 2, 226-234.
54. Xiaoning Sun, Susan Wiedenbeck, Thippaya http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.001
Chintakovid, Qiping Zhang. 2007. The effect of gender 60. Jurgen Wegge. 2006. Communication via
on trust perception and performance in computer- videoconference: Emotional and cognitive consequences
mediated virtual environments. In Proceedings of the of affective personality dispositions, seeing one’s own
American Society for Information Science and picture, and disturbing events. Human-Computer
Technology, 44, 1, 1-14. Interaction, 21, 3, 273-318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450440211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci2103_1
55. Tandberg. 2005. Tandberg Tactical MXP User Manual. 61. Robert A. Wicklund and Shelley Duval. 1971. Opinion
56. Cameron Teoh, Holger Regenbrecht, David O’Hare. change and performance facilitation as a result of
2010. Investigating factors influencing trust in video- objective self-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social
mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 22nd Psychology. 7, 3, 319-342.
Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(71)90032-1

5283

View publication stats