Exploring Collaboration in Group-to-Group Videoconferencing

  • Petr SlovákEmail author
  • Peter Novák
  • Pavel Troubil
  • Vít Rusňák
  • Petr Holub
  • Erik C. Hofer
Conference paper


Prior work on videoconferencing shows that various design changes can have profound impacts on group dynamics. In order to further explore the available design space, we report on a qualitative study that compares behaviour of groups in two group-to-group videoconferencing environments and face-to-face communication during a complex social dilemma game. There are pronounced differences in participant behaviour between the two videoconferencing designs, indicating higher cooperative behaviour in one of the videoconferencing conditions. Based on qualitative analysis of the gameplay, we hypothesise that the decisive factor is a discrepancy in the type of group identity that develops during the game. Our results suggest that the differences in behaviour are due to differences in design of the two videoconferencing environments. In particular, the incorporation of personal displays and individualised videostreams likely contributed to these outcomes.


Group Identity Social Dilemma Cooperative Play Cooperative Scenario Cooperative Goal 
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.



We thank the participants in our study. We are also especially grateful to our technical team, in particular Milan Kabát and Lukáš Ručka, who made sure that the videoconferencing systems ran smoothly during the tests.


  1. 1.
    Ames, M.G., Go, J., Kaye, J.J., Spasojevic, M.: Making love in the network closet: the benefits and work of family videochat. In: CSCW 2010, p. 145. ACM Press (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aubert, O., Prié, Y.: Creating and sharing hypervideos with advene. In: HYPERTEXT 2005, p. 298. ACM Press, Sept 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle, D., Olson, G., Wright, Z.: Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. In: CHI 2002, pp. 135–140. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bos, N., Shami, N.S., Olson, J.S., Cheshin, A., Nan, N.: In-group/out-group effects in distributed teams. In: CSCW 2004, p. 429. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bos, N., Olson, J., Nan, N., Shami, N.S., Hoch, S., Johnston, E.: Collocation blindness in partially distributed groups: is there a downside to being collocated? In: CHI 2006, pp. 1313–1321. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bos, N.D., Buyuktur, A., Olson, J.S., Olson, G.M., Voida, A.: Shared identity helps partially distributed teams, but distance still matters. In: GROUP 2010, p. 89. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Judge, T.K., Neustaedter, C., Kurtz, A.F.: The family window: the design and evaluation of a domestic media space. In: CHI 2010, p. 2361. ACM Press (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kollock, P.: Transforming social dilemmas: group Identity and Cooperation. In: Danielson, P. (ed.) Modeling Rational and Moral Agents, pp. 186–210. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nguyen, D., Canny, J.: MultiView: spatially faithful group video conferencing. In: CHI 2005, pp. 799–808, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen, D.T., Canny, J.: Multiview: improving trust in group video conferencing through spatial faithfulness. In: CHI 2007, pp. 1465–1474, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nguyen, D.T., Canny, J.: More than face-to-face: empathy effects of video framing. In: CHI 2009, pp. 423–432, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Hara, K., Sellen, A., Harper, R.: Embodiment in brain-computer interaction. In: CHI 2011, p. 353, ACM Press, May 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sellen, A., Buxton, B., Arnott, J.: Using spatial cues to improve videoconferencing. In: CHI 1992, pp. 651–652, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slovák, P., Troubil, P., Holub, P.: GColl: a flexible videoconferencing environment for group-to-group interaction. In: INTERACT 2009, Volume 5727 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 165–168. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tang, A., Boyle, M., Greenberg, S.: Display and presence disparity in mixed presence groupware. In: AUIC 2004, vol. 28, pp. 73–82, Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Venolia, G., Tang, J., Cervantes, R., Bly, S., Robertson, G., Lee, B., Inkpen, K.: Embodied social proxy: mediating interpersonal connection in hub-and-satellite teams. In: CHI 2010, p. 1049, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiener, M., Mehrabian, A.: Language Within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication. Irvington Pub., New York (1968)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamashita, N., Hirata, K., Aoyagi, S., Kuzuoka, H., Harada, Y.: Impact of seating positions on group video communication. In: CSCW 2008, p. 177 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petr Slovák
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Novák
    • 1
  • Pavel Troubil
    • 1
  • Vít Rusňák
    • 1
  • Petr Holub
    • 1
  • Erik C. Hofer
    • 2
  1. 1.Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.School of InformationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations