![]() In video there can be information loss of the same visual context, body language, posture, mutual gaze, facial expressions, even voice inflections like pitch and accents. The problem of trust formation seems to boil down to the loss of information–the less information you have the less able you are to decide if you can trust someone. They hypothesize that this behavior was due, not to a lack of desire to cooperate, but rather a lack of knowledge of the other’s intentions, thus suggesting that trust can still be achieved if people are more deliberate in communicating their intentions when not working face to face. ![]() In addition, they found that video had higher occurrences of lying and defection (actions benefiting only the self to the detriment of the group). None of those groups established enough trust to cooperate effectively.Ī similar set of experiments (minus the audio-only test case) conducted by Rockmann and Northcraft focused on deception and came up with more or less the same results for trust formation among video conference groups and ftf groups. The worst case was with text-based chat groups. Audio-only groups also took longer to build trust and reached a slightly lower level of trust than video. In Bos et al’s experiment, ftf groups of total strangers were able to bond almost instantly whereas video conference groups took several rounds of the cooperation game to develop the same level of cooperation. The good news is that according to video trust studies, people using only video communications can achieve similar levels of trust as people working face-to-face (ftf). The bad news is that video still isn’t quite as good as being ftf. ![]() ![]() At the heart of these issues is the issue of building video trust. Milton discussed in some earlier posts the importance of smiling and eye contact in facilitating video mediated communication. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |