skip to main content
10.1145/587078.587110acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception

Published:16 November 2002Publication History

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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bradner, E., & Mark, G. (2001). Social Presence in Video and Application Sharing. In Proceedings of Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP '01), Boulder, Colorado, 154--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. (1st ed.). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1998). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jensen, C., Garnham, S., Drucker, S., & Kollock, P. (2000). The Effect of Communication Modality on Cooperation in Online Environments. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '00), The Hague, Netherlands, 470--477. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jones, S. E. (1995). CyberSociety 2.0 : revisiting computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1991). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 52(1), 96--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kraut, R. E., Egido, C., & Galegher, J. (1990). Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaboration. In J. Galegher & R. E. Kraut (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 149--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Lafferty, J. C., Eady, P. M., & Elmers, J. (1974). The Desert Survival Problem. Plymouth, Michigan. Experimental Learning Methods.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343--356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(2), 283--301. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mark, G., Grudin, J., & Poltrock, S. (1999). Meeting at the Desktop: An Empirical Study of Virtually Collocated Teams. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '99), Copenhagen, Denmark, 159--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Moon, Y. (1998). The Effects of Distance in Local versus Remote Human-Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '98), Los Angeles, CA, 103--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Nahemow, L., & Lawton, M. P. (1975). Similarity and Propinquity in Friendship Formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 205--213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and Outeraction: Instant Messaging in Action. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Washington, 79--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Newcomb, T., M. (1961). The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2/3), 139--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Olson, J., Olson, G., & Meader, D. (1995). What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work? In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'95), Denver, CO, 362--368. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Parise, S., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Waters, K. (1996). My Partner is a Real Dog: Cooperation with Social Agents. In Proceedings of CSCW'96, Boston, MA, 399--408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component model of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598--609.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Poster, M. (1995). The Second Media Age. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sellen, A. J. (1995). Remote conversations: The effects of mediating talk with technology. Human-Computer Interaction, 10(4), 401--444. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Sensenig, J., & Reed, T. (1972). Cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma as a function of interpersonal distance. Psychonomic Science, 26(2), 105--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups : studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CSCW '02: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
          November 2002
          396 pages
          ISBN:1581135602
          DOI:10.1145/587078

          Copyright © 2002 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 16 November 2002

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          CSCW '02 Paper Acceptance Rate39of193submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

          CSCW '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader