1. Effects of tasks and phases on
nonverbal communication
Liv Lefebvre - Alexandre Pauchet - Laurence Perron
France Telecom R&D
University of South Britany, France

2. Mediated communications
2

3. Theorical basis
3

4. Theorical basis
 Computer Mediated Communications studies:
– Face to face
– Audio-visual
– Audio alone
 Results : consequence of absence of visual cues :
– Management of communication turn is less fluent
– Reference to the shared environment must be more explicit
– Less mutual comprehension
– Negotiation and consensus more difficult to find, less solutions
 BUT Whittaker's hypothesis (2003) : effects of mediated
communication are task dependent
– Resolution problem tasks: few differences
– Task that require access to interpersonal information: larger
differences
4

5. The experiment
5

6. Task comparison
Narrative co-conceptionPuzzle completion task
"create the most beautiful and "complete the puzzle as quickly
Instructions : coherent story possible with as possible with your partner
your partner" "
Participants: 18 dyads 16 dyads
6

7. Task comparison: narrative co-conception task
7

8. Task comparison: puzzle completion task
8

9. Task comparison
Narrative co-conceptionPuzzle completion task
Nature of the task : verbal spatial
Nature of the solution : not known known
9

10. Technical device
10

11. Measurement
 Nonverbal production:
– Gaze
11

12. Measurement
 Nonverbal production:
– Gaze
– Communicative gestures: serve to complete and module
discourse (Ekman & Friesen, 1969 ; Goldin-Meadow, 1999 ;
McNeill, 1992)
– Metaphorics
– Beats
metaphoric beat 12

13. Measurement
 Nonverbal production:
– Non communicative gestures (adaptors):
– are gestures produced in case of personal
disorganization (Ekman and Friesen, 1969)
– they don't have any relation with social interaction
(Argentin, 1984 ; Masse, 2000)
adaptators 13

14. Measurement
 Nonverbal production:
– Gaze
– Communicative gestures: serve to complete and module
discourse (Ekman & Friesen, 1969 ; Goldin-Meadow, 1999 ;
McNeill, 1992)
– Metaphorics
– Beats
– Non communicative gestures (adaptors):
– are gestures produced in case of personal disorganization
(Ekman and Friesen, 1969)
– they don't have any relation with social interaction
(Argentin, 1984 ; Masse, 2000)
 Rate of nonverbal production = ( time spend to product /
session's time ) * 100
14

15. Results
15

16. Results: comparison between two tasks
16
14
Rates of nonverbal production
12
Non communicative
10
gestures
8
Communicative
gestures
6 Gaze
4
2
0
puzzle completion narrative co-
task conception task
16

17. Results: comparison between two tasks
Puzzle completion Narrative co-
task conception task
Gaze 16 % 44 %
Communicative gestures 6% 7%
Non communicative
gestures 79 % 49 %
 Patterns of nonverbal production are task dependent
 Can see his partner is not necessary in puzzle completion task…
 …but there isn't the case in narrative co-conception task
 Confirmation of the Whitaker's hypothesis
17

18. Results: comparison between phases in the
puzzle completion task
 Comparison between phases in the puzzle completion task
– Planning phase
– Execution phase
18

19. Results: comparison between phases in the
puzzle completion task
16
Rate of nonverbal production
14
12
Non communicative
10 gestures
8 Communicative
gestures
6 Gaze
4
2
0
Planning
Planification Execution
Execution
phase
phase phase
phase
19

20. Results: comparison between phases in the
puzzle completion task
 Big difference in non verbal production
Planning phase Execution phase
Gaze 53 % 7%
Communicative gestures 42% 4%
Non communicative
gestures 5% 90%
20

21. Results: comparison between phases in the
narrative co-conception task
 21 dyads interact via computers
– Same task
– Same instructions
 Differences between phases are
less clear:
– Review of items
– Narrative phase
– Interaction phase
21

22. Results: comparison between phases in the
narrative co-conception task
40
35
Rates of nonverbal production
30
Non communicative
25 gestures
Communicative gestures
20
15 Gaze
10
5
0
Review of Narrative Interaction
items phase phase
22

23. Results: comparison between phases in the
narrative co-conception task
Review of items Narrative phase Interaction phase
Gaze 34% 30% 46%
Communicative
gestures 2% 13% 9%
Non
communicative
gestures 64% 57% 45%
23

24. Results summary
 Production of gaze:
– In puzzle completion task in planning phase: 53 %
– In narrative co-conception task: 44 %
– In interaction phase: 46 %
 Production of communicative gestures:
– In puzzle completion task in planning phase: 42 %
 Production of non communicative gestures:
– In puzzle completion task: 79 %
– In execution phase: 90 %
24

25. Conclusion
25

26. Conclusion
 Whittaker's hypothesis (2003) is verified:
– During the narrative co-conception: more gaze and communicative
gestures
– During puzzle completion: more non communicative gestures
 In addition: differences between phases in interactions:
– Planification phase: more gaze and communicative gestures
– Execution phase: more non communicative gestures
 Applications for design of new systems of mediated communications
– Importance of visual access:
– During tasks that require access to interpersonal information
– When users have need to negotiate the task planification
– Not necessary to have a visual access:
– During resolution problem tasks
– When users have already plan the task and they execute their
plans
26

27. thank you
contact: liv.lefebvre@gmail.com
Whittaker, S. (2003). Theories and Methods in Mediated Communication. In A. C. Graesser &
M. A. Gernsbacher &S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Processes. Mahwah: NJ:
LEA.

28. 28

29. 29

30. Experimental manipulation
 4 experimental conditions:
– At a distance with the same view on the material
– At a distance with opposite view on the material
– Collocated situation side-by-side
– Collocated situation face-to-face
30

31. Experimental manipulation
 4 experimental conditions:
– At a distance with the same view on the material
– At a distance with opposite view on the material
– Collocated situation side-by-side
– Collocated situation face-to-face
31

32. Experimental manipulation
 4 experimental conditions:
– A a distance with the same view on the material
– A a distance with opposite view on the material
– Collocated situation side-by-side
– Collocated situation face-to-face
32

33. Experimental manipulation
 4 experimental conditions:
– A a distance with the same view on the material
– A a distance with opposite view on the material
– Collocated situation side-by-side
– Collocated situation face-to-face
33

34. Results by conditions
Distance
16
14
Rates of nonverbal production
12
Non communicative
10
gestures
8
Communicative gestures
6 Gaze
4
2
0
puzzle completion narrative co-
conception
34

35. Results by conditions
collocated
7
6
Rates of nonverbal production
5
Non communicative
gestures
4
Communicative
gestures
3
Gaze
2
1
0
puzzle completion narrative co-
conception
35

36. Results by conditions
face-to-face
14
12
Rates of nonverbal production
10
Non communicative
gestures
8
Communicative
gestures
6
Gaze
4
2
0
puzzle completion narrative co-
conception
36

37. Results by conditions
Side-by-side
14
Rates of nonverbal production
12
10
Non communicative
gestures
8
Communicative
gestures
6
Gaze
4
2
0
puzzle completion narrative co-
conception
37