Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception

ABSTRACT

In this study, we examine how geographic distance affects collaboration using computer-mediated communication technology. We investigated experimentally the effects of cooperating partners being in the same or distant city on three behaviors: cooperation, persuasion, and deception using video conferencing and instant messaging (IM). Our results indicate that subjects are more likely to deceive, be less persuaded by, and initially cooperate less, with someone they believe is in a distant city, as opposed to in the same city as them. Although people initially cooperate less with someone they believe is far away, their willingness to cooperate increases quickly with interaction. Since the same media were used in both the far and near city conditions, these effects cannot be attributed to the media, but rather to social differences. This study confirms how CSCW needs to be concerned with developing technologies for bridging social distance, as well as geographic distance.

REFERENCES

• 1: Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• 2: Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? Applied Psychology, 77(4), 562--566.
• 3: Erin Bradner , Gloria Mark, Social presence with video and application sharing, Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, September 30-October 03, 2001, Boulder, Colorado, USA [doi>10.1145/500286.500310]
• 4: Manuel Castells, Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1996
• 5: Finholt, T. A., & Olson, G. M. (1997). From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science, 8(1), 28--35.
• 6: Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. (1st ed.). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
• 7: Herbsleb, J. D., Klein, H., Olson, G. M., Brunner, H., Olson, J. S., & Harding, J. (1995). Object-oriented analysis and design in software project teams. Human-Computer Interaction, 10 (2/3), 249--292.
• 8: Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1998). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4).
• 9: Carlos Jensen , Shelly D. Farnham , Steven M. Drucker , Peter Kollock, The effect of communication modality on cooperation in online environments, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.470-477, April 01-06, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/332040.332478]
• 10: Steven G. Jones, Cybersociety 2.0: revisiting computer-mediated communication and community, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998
• 11: Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1991). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 52(1), 96--123.
• 12: Robert E. Kraut , Carmen Egido , Jolene Galegher, Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaborations, Intellectual teamwork: social and technological foundations of cooperative work, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1990
• 13: Lafferty, J. C., Eady, P. M., & Elmers, J. (1974). The Desert Survival Problem. Plymouth, Michigan. Experimental Learning Methods.
• 14: Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343--356.
• 15: Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance Matters: Physical Space and Social Impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 795--805.
• 16: Martin Lea , Russell Spears, Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.34 n.2, p.283-301, Feb. 1991 [doi>10.1016/0020-7373(91)90045-9]
• 17: Gloria Mark , Jonathan Grudin , Steven E. Poltrock, Meeting at the desktop: an empirical study of virtually collocated teams, Proceedings of the Sixth European conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.159-178, August 1999, Copenghagen, Denmark
• 18: Youngme Moon, The effects of distance in local versus remote human-computer interaction, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.103-108, April 18-23, 1998, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/274644.274660]
• 19: Moon, Y. (1998). Impression Management in Computer-Based Interviews: The Effects of Input Modality, Output Modality, and Distance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(4), 610--622.
• 20: Moon, Y. (1999). The Effects of Physical Distance and Response Latency on Persuasion in Computer-Mediated Communication and Human-Computer Communication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(4), 379--392. http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/
• 21: Nahemow, L., & Lawton, M. P. (1975). Similarity and Propinquity in Friendship Formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 205--213.
• 22: Bonnie A. Nardi , Steve Whittaker , Erin Bradner, Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.79-88, December 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/358916.358975]
• 23: Newcomb, T., M. (1961). The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• 24: Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2/3), 139--178.
• 25: Judith S. Olson , Gary M. Olson , David K. Meader, What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work?, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.362-368, May 07-11, 1995, Denver, Colorado, United States [doi>10.1145/223904.223951]
• 26: Salvatore Parise , Sara Kiesler , Lee Sproull , Keith Waters, My partner is a real dog: cooperation with social agents, Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.399-408, November 16-20, 1996, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/240080.240351]
• 27: Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component model of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598--609.
• 28: Poster, M. (1995). The Second Media Age. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
• 29: Sellen, A. J. (1995). Remote conversations: The effects of mediating talk with technology. Human-Computer Interaction, 10(4), 401--444.
• 30: Sensenig, J., & Reed, T. (1972). Cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma as a function of interpersonal distance. Psychonomic Science, 26(2), 105--106.
• 31: Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
• 32: Lee Sproull , Sara Kiesler, Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991
• 33: Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups : studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Computer-supported cooperative work

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
      K.4.2 Social Issues

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
CSCW, cooperation, deception, distance collaboration, empirical study, instant messaging, video