Exploring trust in group-to-group video-conferencing

Abstract

Previous work has shown that supporting trust via computer-mediated communication can be a challenge, especially among strangers. In this paper, we report on an experiment comparing two group-to-group videoconferencing environments and face-to-face communication in their ability to support trust and mutual cooperation in a social dilemma task. There are pronounced differences in participant behaviour between the two video-conferencing designs, indicating higher mutual trust in one of the video-conferencing conditions. The decisive factor seems to be a discrepancy in the type of group identity that develops during the game. Moreover, our results suggest that a combination of personal displays and a unique videostream of each participant present in the better videoconferencing condition contributed to this result.

Towards Hybrid Collaboration Spaces - A Model of Support Requirements for Hybrid Collaboration

“…They suggest considering participants' social structure and cultural background and argue that questions of social structure cannot be solved through social presence technology alone but that one should first start by "establishing the social structure as the guide to the appropriate mediated solution". Slovák, Novák, Troubil, Holub, and Hofer (2011) further studied the role of trust in group-to-group video communication and compared a face-toface meeting to two different hybrid settings (one involving a standard video conferencing tool, the other a self-built prototype). For a social dilemma game, they found superior outcomes of the face-to-face setting compared to the others and attributed this to trust and group identity.…”

What was Hybrid? A Systematic Review of Hybrid Collaboration and Meetings Research

“…The complete absence of such asynchronously prepared material (in addition to the absence of other asynchronous interactions) is depicted in the taxonomy as '0' in column 'Asynchronicity' (in turn frequently leading to a categorization of '3' in column 'Synchronicity' for the purest form of synchronous collaboration, as in [207] or [159]). Likewise, rapid reciprocal user interactions within the bounds of merely a few seconds over the major part of the duration is depicted as '3' in column 'Synchronicity' while only having such behavior rarely leads to decreases in the ratings for synchronicity (e.g., [180,190]).…”

“…While Skype, NetMeeting, Google Hangouts and Access Grid are used for audio/video (AV) conferencing, MS Outlook, MSN and IRC are used for text-based hybrid collaboration. One paper used a noncommercial software called APSIM (Agricultural Production Simulator) [96] and at least one paper specified that they used an open source prototype for group-to-group collaboration called GColl [180]. Eleven of the papers used their own prototype specifically aimed for AV conferencing and 15 of the papers used their own prototype for supporting different forms of hybrid collaboration.…”

“…6.5.1 SLR. Papers focusing on hybrid patterns of social interaction are listed here: [124], [23], [21], [79], [22], [206], [156], [24], [180], [94]. Table 7 gives an overview of their findings where the Focal Point (FP) column tag is "SI".…”

SideBar: Videoconferencing System Supporting Social Engagement

“…Using a video setup that captures both face and upper body have been shown to have a positive result on trust and empathy in groups as opposed to only capturing the face [21]. Another study of trust in different group-to-group videoconferencing setups suggests that a combination of personal displays and individual streams of each participant contribute to a higher level of trust development [22], and that the perception of proximity in videoconferencing is linked to the zoom of the camera [23]. GAZE-2 [18] is a group video system that supports eyecontact transmission.…”