Common Ground and Small Group Interaction in Large Virtual World Gatherings

  • N. Sadat ShamiEmail author
  • Thomas Erickson
  • Wendy A. Kellogg
Conference paper


Virtual worlds can allow conversational participants to achieve common ground in situations where the information volume and need for clarification is low. We argue in favor of this assertion through an examination of a semi-structured activity among hundreds of users held in a virtual world. Through the idea of implicit grounding, we argue that the affordances of contextualized space, knowledge of the social occasion, and creative self presentation allowed attendees to achieve common ground in a low information volume, low clarification need activity. We use the success of the event to reexamine and extend Clark and Brennan??s work on grounding in communication.


Virtual Environment Common Ground Virtual World Poster Session Computer Mediate Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benford, S., Bowers, J., Fahl, L. E., Greenhalgh, C., and Snowdon, D. (1995): ’User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments’, in Proc. CHI 1995, ACM Press, pp. 242–249.Google Scholar
  2. Benford, S., and Greenhalgh, C. (1997): ’Introducing Third Party Objects into the Spatial Model of Interaction’, in Proc. ECSCW 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 189–204.Google Scholar
  3. Birnholtz, J. P., Finholt, T. A., Horn, D. B., and Bae, S. J. (2005): ’Grounding needs: achieving common ground via lightweight chat in large, distributed, ad-hoc groups’, in Proc. CHI 2005, ACM Press, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
  4. Bly, S. A., Harrison, S. R., and Irwin, S. (1993): ’Media spaces: bringing people together in a video, audio, and computing environment’, Commun. ACM, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, J., Pycock, J., and O’Brien, J. (1996): ’Talk and embodiment in collaborative virtual environments’, in Proc. CHI 1996, ACM Press, pp. 58–65.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. E. (1991): ‘Grounding in communication’, in L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. Teasley (eds.): Perspectives on socially shared cognition (APA, Washington, 1991, pp. 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H., and Marshall, C. E. (1981): ’Definite reference and mutual knowledge.’, in A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber & I. A. Sag (eds.): Elements of discourse understanding (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981, pp. 10–63.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, H. H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986): ’Referring as a collaborative process’, Cognition, vol. 22, pp. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Convertino, G., Mentis, H. M., Rosson, M. B., Slavkovic, A., and Carroll, J. M. (2009): ’Supporting content and process common ground in computer-supported teamwork’, in Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press, pp. 2339–2348.Google Scholar
  10. Dourish, P. (2006): ’Re-space-ing place: "place" and "space" ten years on’, in Proc. CSCW 2006, ACM Press, pp. 299–308.Google Scholar
  11. Erickson, T., Shami, N. S., Kellogg, W. A., and Levine, D. (2011): ’Synchronous Interaction Among Hundreds: An Evaluation of a Conference in an Avatar-based Virtual Environment’, in Proc. CHI 2011, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, M., Benford, S., Hindmarsh, J., and Heath, C. (1999): ’Supporting awareness and interaction through collaborative virtual interfaces’, in Proc. UIST 1999, ACM Press, pp. 27–36.Google Scholar
  13. Gergle, D., Kraut, R. E., and Fussell, S. R. (2004): ’Action as language in a shared visual space’, in Proc. CSCW 2004, ACM Press, pp. 487–496.Google Scholar
  14. Greenhalgh, C., and Benford, S. (1995): ’MASSIVE: a collaborative virtual environment for teleconferencing’, ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heldal, I., Steed, A., Spante, M., Schroeder, R., Bengtsson, S., and Partanen, M. (2005): ’Successes and Failures in Co-Present Situations’, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 563–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., Heath, C., Benford, S., and Greenhalgh, C. (1998): ’Fragmented interaction: establishing mutual orientation in virtual environments’, in Proc. CSCW 1998, ACM Press, pp. 217–226.Google Scholar
  17. Kelly, J. W., Beall, A. C., and Loomis, J. M. (2004): ’Perception of Shared Visual Space: Establishing Common Ground in Real and Virtual Environments’, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 442–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kraut, R., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., and Siegel, J. (2002): ’Understanding the effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work’, in P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (eds.): Distributed Work (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002, pp. 137–162.Google Scholar
  19. Kraut, R., Fussell, S. R., and Siegel, J. (2003): ’Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks’, Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 18, pp. 13–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sellen, A., Buxton, B., and Arnott, J. (1992): ’Using spatial cues to improve videoconferencing’, in Proc. CHI 1992, ACM Press, pp. 651–652.Google Scholar
  21. Traum, D., and Rickel, J. (2002): ’Embodied agents for multi-party dialogue in immersive virtual worlds’, in Proc. AAMAS 2002, ACM Press, pp. 766–773.Google Scholar
  22. Veinott, E. S., Olson, J., Olson, G. M., and Fu, X. (1999): ’Video helps remote work: speakers who need to negotiate common ground benefit from seeing each other’, in Proc. CHI 1999, ACM Press, pp. 302–309.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Sadat Shami
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Erickson
    • 1
  • Wendy A. Kellogg
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM TJ Watson Research CenterArmonkUSA

Personalised recommendations