The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-

mediated communication in a playful context

Kartini Rakiman

ANR: S167545

University of Tilburg

Communication and Information Sciences

BDM Bachelor Thesis 2012/2013

Under the supervision of S. Shahid

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 2

Abstract

The present study aims to explore how various conditions with differences in various levels of eye gaze influences the user experience of children in video- mediated game play and how they perceive social presence in these conditions. It investigates how children interact socially and express themselves emotionally while they are playing a simple card game. This study compared three different video-mediated conditions (no gaze condition, semi-ideal gaze condition and ideal gaze condition) with the focus on social presence and non-verbal behavior of children from the age seven and eight. Results of this study suggest that true mutual gaze is important for establishing social presence with children but almost mutual gaze is sufficient enough to create the same effect. Nevertheless, the findings of this study stress the importance of mutual gaze and thus suggests that for future implementation, video-mediated communication systems should always try to integrate the ability for true mutual gaze or enable almost true mutual gaze.

Keywords: video-mediated communication, eye gaze, social presence, games, children.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4 2. Theoretical framework 9 2.1. Video-mediated communication in a game play context 10 2.2. Social presence and media richness 15 2.3. Video-mediated communication systems 18 2.4. Mutual gaze 25 2.5. Mutual gaze and non-verbal behavior with children 27 2.6. The current studies 30 3. Method 33 3.1. Card game 33 3.2. Equipment 35 3.2.1. Room 1 36 3.2.2. Room 2 38 3.3. Participants 38 3.4. Procedure 39 3.5. Video coding: observation scheme 42 3.6. Measurements 43 3.7. Statistical analysis 45 3.8. Results 45 4. Discussion 51 5. Conclusion and future work 56 Acknowledgements References

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 4

1. Introduction

Computer-mediated communication can be defined as any communicative transaction that takes place between human beings through the use of networked personal computers (e.g. Herring, 1996; Hian et. al., 2004; McQuail, 2005;). It includes a variety of electronic message systems such as chat or e-mail which can be supplemented by audio and video links (Derks, Fischer & Bos, 2008). The professional and private use of computer-mediated communication has increased over the years. E-mail and chat services help to maintain our relationships with friends and colleagues in different locations (Derks, Fischer & Bos, 2008).

Especially now with social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin) it has become so much easier to keep ‘in touch’ with family, friends and colleagues. All the while, technological advances have made it possible to see them on communication devices (e.g. cameras in smartphones, tablets and laptops through the use of software such as Skype).

With the advent and development of more sophisticated telecommunication technologies it has made the concept of actual presence a fuzzy one (Blascovich et. al., 2002). Actual presence is perceived primarily on the basis of sensory information but with the advent of these technologies it can be either face to face or mediated by telecommunication (Blascovich et. al., 2002). In terms of actual

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 5

social presence these technologies transmit less information which consequently provides less cues to communication partners (e.g. Blascovich et. al., 2002; Derks,

Bos & Grumbkow, 2004) Absence of these cues (signaling proximity and orientation, physical appearance and attractiveness, facial expressions, direction of gaze, mutual eye gaze, posture, dress, and nonverbal and vocal signals) contributes to differences in social presence elicited by telecommunication media (Blacovich et. al., 2002).

An important pre-condition for perceived social presence is mutual gaze

(Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). While people communicate they can make eye- contact (mutual gaze) and be aware of what their conversation partner is looking at (gaze awareness). Nevertheless, mutual gaze is difficult to provide using conventional video conferencing equipment due to the disparity between the position of the camera and the position of the eyes on the screen. Many video systems still place limitations on the ability of the user to make eye-contact and use gaze awareness effectively which contributes to the inability of video-mediated communication to fully portray nonverbal signals (e.g. Monk & Gale, 2002;

Fullwood, 2007)

One of the questions that arises is to what extent does video-mediated communication allow for a perceived sense of social presence comparable to face

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 6

to face communication. What aspects of communication behavior makes that people have a sense of social presence in a video-mediated interaction. More specifically, what is the role of eye gaze in social presence during video-mediated communication? There are many studies that have conducted research on how differences in telecommunication media changes the relational aspects of communication and how effectiveness can be increased in message transfer

(Kreijn, 2004). The answers to these questions can provide insights in the ways video-mediated communication allows people to perceive a sense of social presence. In addition, it gives an insight in their social communication behaviors in video-mediated environments.

Previous research on social presence regard to video-mediated communication focuses mainly on professional or learning environments for adults. In addition many studies could not establish true mutual gaze (or it was hard to achieve) due to limitations of the medium (e.g. Vertegaal & Ding, 2002;

Fullwood, 2007) or they measured only its effect on the usability of video- mediated communication systems (e.g. Mukawa et. al., 2005). Furthermore, to gain more insights the majority of previous studies used task performance and usability questionnaires for methodology. Other methods such as playful task performance are not often used. Moreover, in playful situations, children are a natural group to

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 7

target but there is little research on video-mediated communication regard to children (Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). To date, information on the role of social presence in video-mediated communication is incomplete.

The goal of this study is to carry out research into how eye gaze effects user experience and perceived social presence of physically-apart children during a video-mediated game play. The focus of this study is on young children that play a card game in one of three conditions; (1) children play the card game using video- mediated communication but eye-contact (eye gaze and mutual gaze) is not possible, (2) the second condition is wherein children play the card game using video-mediated communication with eye gaze but mutual gaze is not possible and

(3) the third condition is that children play the card game via video-mediated communication using the Eyecatcher with the possibility of mutual gaze. This study conducts research into how various conditions with differences in various levels of eye gaze influences the user experience of children (e.g. fun) and how they perceive social presence.

The organization of this study is as follows: In section 2 the theoretical framework and previous research are being discussed. section 3 describes the data collection procedure based on the card game. This section presents the results of game experience and perceived social presence questionnaires filled out by the

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 8

children after their game play. Other results that are presented are the number of audiovisual features in relation to affect. These positive and negative effects are displayed by the children during their game play. In section 4 all results are discussed in the light of existing findings. Finally in section 5 conclusions are drawn to design better playful settings for video-mediated communication and in relation to children.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 9

2. Theoretical framework

Video-mediated communication facilitates a mode of conversation reminiscent to face to face conversations (e.g. Johanson, 2003; Fullwood, 2007) due to technology that increases the amount of nonverbal information available to remote participants. (e.g. Grayson & Coventry, 1999; Kandola, 2009). It allows them to interpret nonverbal cues (signaling proximity and orientation, physical appearance and attractiveness, facial expressions, direction of gaze, mutual eye gaze, posture, dress and other non-verbal signals ) (Blascovich et. al., 2002) which in turn helps them to uphold features and properties (e.g. turn taking, social norms, ability to monitor people’s reaction) associated with face to face communication (e.g. O’Connaill, Whittaker & Wilbur, 1993). It must be noted that it depends on the ability of a video-mediated communication system to what extent these nonverbal cues can be displayed but research shows that users of computer- supported collaboration systems, subjectively prefer audio/video systems to audio only systems, due to psychosocial factors such as the perceived ‘social presence’ and ‘feeling of closeness’ (e.g. Doherty et. al., 1997, Johanson, 2003).

There is extensive research in the area of video-mediated communication.

Examples of studies that have been done include comparison with face to face communication (e.g. O’Conaill, Whittaker & Wilbur, 1993; Anderson et. al., 1996;

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 10

O’Malley et. al., 1996; Doherty et. al., 1997;), influence on the communication process (e.g. Anderson et. al., 1996; Doherty et. al., 1997), task performance (e.g.

Anderson et. al., 1996; Doherty et. al., 1997), collaboration between remote participants (e.g. Anderson et. al., 1996), the effects of visibility on interaction (e.g.

Argyle, Lalljee & Cook, 1968), influence of social context (e.g. Tanis & Postmes,

2003; Derks, Bos & Grumbkow, 2004), influence on communication of emotions and/or non-verbal behavior (e.g. Derks, Fischer & Bos, 2008), effects of visual proxemic information (e.g. Grayson & Coventry, 1999), different videoconferencing systems (e.g. Sellen, 1995) and eye gaze (e.g. Ohno, 2005).

Despite the fact that research in existing literature is extensive, the contexts explored in video-mediated communication research is generally related to a professional setting. This study investigates the role of eye gaze in social presence in a non-professional game playing context. It performs research on how the presence and absence of mutual gaze effects the perceived social presence, social interaction and game experience of physically-apart children (Shahid, Krahmer,

Swerts, 2012).

2.1 Video-mediated communication in a game play context

Games are generally interactive, result-oriented, competitive, dynamic,

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 11

exciting in nature and most of all, fun to play (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Because games have these properties, they can have an influence on the emotional state of the player and therefore can be used as a method for eliciting emotions (Kierkels & van Bommel, 2010). Emotional expression is a function of underlying emotions and display rules specifying what expressions are socially appropriate in a given situation (Derks, Bos & Grumbkow, 2004). As Derks, Bos and Grumbkow (2004) point out, it is more appropriate to express emotions in a socio-emotional context than in a task-oriented context and these task types influence the degree of social presence and communication processes (Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Derks, Bos &

Grumbkow, 2004).

The contexts explored in video-mediated communication research have often been limited (Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). In addition, playful interactions in non-work settings, such as game playing, is still understudied

(Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). Remote participants, generally adults, are usually involved in professional tasks related to business, work, healthcare or education (e.g. Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). Fels and Weiss (2001) for instance, used a healthcare and education setting by developing an application of video-mediated communication known as PEBBLES (Providing Education By

Bringing Learning Environments to Students). It is a video-mediated

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 12

communication system that has been designed to link a child in the hospital with his or her regular classroom (Fels & Weiss, 2001). Other studies focused on a work and business setting by investigating distant collaborative meetings and computer- supported cooperative work (e.g. Olsen, Olsen & Meader, 1995; Fussell, Kraut &

Siegel, 2000, Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts 2012).

There are a few studies that have used a game play context in video- mediated communication. Annetta et. al. (2009) examined the impact of video games in terms of its affective and cognitive impact on student users while using

MEGA (Multiplayer Educational Gaming application). In their study however, they used an educational setting and eye gaze was not taken into account. Anderson et. al. (1996) used the Travel Game; designed to be a form of collaborative problem- solving which involved a more social dimension. Even though they aimed at exploring the impact of visual signals on the decision-making process there was no particular focus on eye gaze.

Kleinke and Pohlen (1971) investigated the influence of context upon attitude toward a gazing person using the mixed-motive game Prisoner’s Dilemma.

They had 50 male undergraduates play the game with a confederate whose gaze

(constant gaze versus no gaze) and cooperativeness (100% cooperative, 90% cooperative, 100% competitive) were manipulated (Kleinke & Pohlen, 1971).

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 13

Interestingly, subject’s ratings of the confederate on liking and partner preference were affected by the confederate’s cooperativeness but not his gaze (Kleinke &

Pohlen, 1971). They also found that gaze was functionally related to emotional arousal because subjects in the gaze condition had higher heart rates than subjects in the no gaze condition. Even though their focus was on eye gaze and used a game play as context, participants were not allowed to talk in this study. In addition, non-verbal behavior related to emotional arousal was not analyzed. Furthermore, all research examples did not use children as participants despite the fact that these studies used a game play context.

In playful situations, children are a natural group to target (Shahid,

Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). Nevertheless, there are only a few studies that have explored children’s game play in video-mediated communication. Kleinke,

Desautels and Knapp (1977) used a word game as a context to measure a difference in affiliation between boys and girls with regard to eye gaze. In their study they had preschool boys and girls play the game with a woman who gazed either 20% or 80% of the time. Results of their study show that the girls tended to like the 80% gazing woman more than the 20% gazing woman while the boys showed a preference for the 20% gazing woman. They suggested that “boys interpreted high levels of gaze from the woman as a sign that they were doing

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 14

something wrong because boys experience more negative sanctions from teachers in school” (Kleinke, 1986). This study does uses a game for its context but the focus is on gender differences within eye gaze.

Kierkels & van Bommel (2010) investigated the influence of affective games on the mood of Dutch children and whether this is different between genders. For their study they developed two affective games for inducing basic emotions by using the GameE (Game as a method for eliciting Emotions) paradigm. In their study they also used the Eyecatcher to gather audiovisual data but the emphasis was on emotion and not eye gaze. Their focus however was on game play for the purpose of helping children with their cognitive development in a fun and ethical way (Kierkels & van Bommel, 2010). Research has shown that time spent in free play key is to a child’s cognitive development and to developing socio-cultural and emotional competencies during the period between infancy and adolescence (e.g.

Vygotsky, 1967; Stafford, 2004; Yarosh, Inkpen & Brush, 2010). The results of

Kierkels and van Bommel’s study was in line with their hypothesis which stated that emotions can be induced by letting children play affective games (Kierkels & van Bommel, 2010).

The study of Yarosh, Inkpen & Brush (2010) explored various prototypes for free play over videoconferencing (Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). Results of

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 15

their study showed that even though children were successful at free play in videoconferencing, they also face challenges to manage visibility, attention, and intersubjectivity during play (Yarosh, Inkpen & Brush, 2010).

These studies showed interesting findings but there is still no extensive research on playful interactions during video-mediated communication with regard to children and their perceived social presence. In addition, there is very little research in existing literature that investigates the role of eye gaze and in particular mutual gaze in a game play context. The question is whether playful interactions contribute to a feeling of closeness during video-mediated communication by eliciting emotions and therefore also enhances perceived social presence.

2.2 Social presence and media richness

Video-mediated communication has the potential to communicate socio- emotional cues in such a way that the other person in the interaction is perceived as ‘physically present’ (e.g. Kreijns, 2004). The original explanation of Short,

Williams and Christie (1976) defines this as “the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships”. They hypothesized that telecommunications media vary in their

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 16

degree of social presence and that these variations are important in determining the way individuals interact; the more personal, sensitive, warm, and sociable the medium is perceived, the higher social presence is (e.g. Short, Williams & Christie,

1976; Tu, 2002; IJsselsteijn, van Baren & van Lanen, 2003). Higher levels of social presence include a sense of behavioral engagement where actions are linked, reactive, and interdependent (Biocca, Harms & Gregg, 2001). If the participants are unfamiliar with each other and the conversation is task oriented and more public the degree of social presence will degrade (Tu, 2002). The lowest levels of social presence results in a peripheral sense of spatial co-presence of the other and minimal attributions of about the states of the other such as basic categorization of the other’s identity, intentions, and attention (Biocca, Harms & Gregg, 2001).

Factors that contribute to the degree of social presence in a face to face encounter are facial expression, direction of gaze, posture, dress, nonverbal cues and vocal cues (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). The ability of video-mediated communication systems to transmit these cues contributes to the creation and increase of social presence in video-mediated communication. (O’Malley et. al., 1996; Biocca et. al.,

2003; Kim et. al., 2011). Other factors are system characteristics such as audio- video quality, low transmission lags, image size (physical proximity and

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 17

appearance) and use of multiple modalities (e.g. Argyle & Dean, 1965; O’Connaill,

Whittaker & Wilbur, 1993; McCulloch & Oborne, 1999).

It is a fundamental premise of social presence theory that some media generate more social presence than others. (e.g. Short, Williams & Christie, 1976;

Rice, 1993; Biocca, Harms & Gregg, 2001). This is due to the capacity of communication media to process rich information and to the extent to which media are able to bridge different frames of reference, make issues less ambiguous, or provide opportunities for learning in a given time interval (Daft & Lengel, 1986;

Rice, 1993). The media richness theory originally proposed by Daft & Lengel

(1986) explains this as follows: “the reason for richness differences include the medium’s capacity for immediate feedback, the number of cues and channels utilized, personalization, and language variety”. The media classifications are (1) face to face, (2) telephone, (3) personal documents such as letters, memos and e- mail, (4) written personal to written formal and (5) numeric formal media (e.g.

Daft & Lengel, 1986, Kreijns, 2004). Face to face communication is considered to be the richest medium because it provides immediate feedback, multiple cues via body language and tone of voice and message content is expressed in natural language (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Most mediated interactions lack the ‘media richness’ and many of the non-verbal cues of face to face interaction (Burgoon,

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 18

Buller & Woodall, as cited in Biocca, Harms & Gregg, 1996). Therefore, they are assumed to support less social presence (Biocca, Harms & Gregg, 2001).

Social presence theory (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976) and media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) suggest that task activities should be matched with appropriate communication media in order to achieve optimal communication efficiency and satisfaction (Rice, 1993). The question is whether video-mediated communication has enough ‘media richness’ to provide remote participants more channels and cues to achieve and obtain an interaction that is optimal with use of natural language. To answer this question, it is to a large extent dependent on which visual cues are enabled by a video-mediated communication system. In this study, mutual gaze will be established through the use of the ‘Eye-catcher’ which is one of the latest technologies on video-mediated communication systems.

2.3 Video-mediated communication systems

The diversity of potential differences between video-mediated communication systems may well account for the inconsistent findings in the literature (Doherty et. al., 1997). These systems may have varied in terms of image size, transmission delays, synchronization of audio and visual channels, whether audio is full or half duplex (i.e. allowing communication that is simultaneous or

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 19

only in one direction at a time) and the degree to which participants are able to have eye-contact or maintain the same direction of gaze (Doherty et. al., 1997). To draw further on the latter, many studies could not establish true mutual gaze, or it was hard to achieve, due to limitations of the medium (e.g. Vertegaal & Ding, 2002;

Fullwood & Doherty-Sneddon, 2006; Fullwood, 2007). Nevertheless, there is a large body of work suggesting solutions to this problem and mediate mutual gaze

(Grayson & Monk, 2003).

One way to achieve mutual gaze is to use a ‘half-silvered mirror’ originally invented by Rosenthal (1947) (Figure 1). Each user sees the image of their partner through the half silvered mirror where the camera sees their face reflected in

(Grayson & Monk, 2003). “To achieve a close alignment between the position of the

Figure 1 mutual gaze using a half silvered mirror

eyes in the image and the virtual position of the camera the viewing position of the users has to be restricted” (Grayson & Monk, 2003). Many researchers drew

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 20

further on this concept and applied it to video conferencing. In the Xerox design of

Buxton and Moran (1990) they used a long cowl in front of the image which is nowadays commonly known as a ‘video tunnel’ (Buxton & Moran, 1990; Monk &

Gale, 2002; Grayson & Monk, 2003).

A related design was ‘Clearboard-1’ (Ishii & Kobayashi, 1992) which later on evolved in ‘Clearboard-2’ (Figure 2). The difference is that the latter has an incorporated multiuser paint editor named TeamPaint ( Ishii, Kobayashi & Grudin,

1993). Both designs realize a shared drawing space and eye-contact to support

Figure 2 Clearboard 2 using Teampaint

real-time and remote collaboration between two users (Ishii & Kobayashi, 1992;

Ishii, Kobayashi & Grudin, 1993). For both designs the principle is the same; it projects the image of one’s conversation partner onto the underside of a transparent drawing surface. The drawing surface is a half-silvered mirror, the

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 21

‘board’ of the title. The camera was placed so as to look down on the board thus capturing a reflection of the participant in the board. The surface of each board and the lens of both cameras are covered with a polarizing filter to prevent video feedback between the two cameras and screen pairs (e.g. Ishii & Kobayashi, 1992;

Monk & Gale, 2002; Grayson & Monk, 2003).

Monk & Gale (2002) based their ‘GA display’ on Clearboard 2 but physically separated the objects being looked at from the image of the other participant. Each participant viewed the image of the other participant through a half-silvered mirror in a conventional video tunnel arrangement. The camera was mounted to the side of the participant and it viewed such that the mirror served to right-left reverse the image (Monk & Gale, 2002). A translucent display was positioned half way between the participant and the image of the other participant (Monk & Gale,

2002). What makes their system different from the other systems, is that it supported mutual gaze as well as full gaze awareness (Monk & Gale, 2002). This was because the mirror left-right transformed the image of the other person apparently behind the translucent display (Monk & Gale, 2002).

Vertegaal (1999) proposed a different solution with his ‘Gaze-system’. It uses prerecorded still images of the other participant looking in different directions and an eye movement monitor to detect when one participant was

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 22

looking at the image of another participant’s face (Grayson & Monk, 2003).

However, this system enables mutual gaze with an still image, not with a video image of the other participant which makes it rather artificial (Monk & Gale, 2002;

Grayson & Monk, 2003). ‘GAZE-2’ (Vertegaal et. al., 2001; Grayson & Monk, 2003), an elaboration of the Gaze-system, uses a video tunnel. In this system the rotated windows are live video images rather than pre-stored stills and there are three cameras activated by the eye-tracker, one for each window (Grayson & Monk,

2003).

Figure 3 Gaze 2 system

The Hydra system of Sellen (1995) also uses a different camera for each participant; it simulates a four-way, round-table meeting by placing a camera, monitor and speaker in the place that would otherwise be held by each remote participant (Sellen, 1995; Grayson & Monk, 2003). Each person is presented with a

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 23

unique view of each remote participant by which the act of gazing toward someone can be conveyed (Sellen, 1995). In addition, this system uses monitors spread out in front of the viewer to increase the physical separation of the images of the remote participants (Grayson & Monk, 2003).

Previous system have established mutual gaze but they are still no ideal forms of video-mediated communication systems. The systems have no or little gaze awareness because interlocutors are not able to see the surroundings of their communication partner. In addition, there is no entire image of the body

(language). All these lack of features mean a loss of emotional and social interaction cues and there is no salient social presence. Furthermore, all systems are still not useable for common, everyday use; the use of half-silvered mirrors, eye-trackers and multiple cameras makes for a complex and expensive system

(Grayson & Monk, 2003). In addition, there is still the dependency of the technical factor such as access to internet and bandwidth. To draw further on this, evidence in existing literature shows that even high-quality audio and video do not deliver the same efficiency benefits as face-to-face interaction and therefore do not replicate face-to-face processes (e.g. Doherty-Sneddon et. al., 1997; Grayson &

Monk, 2003, Fullwood, 2007). However, as some studies point out the similarity of face-to-face interactions is higher when high-quality video systems are used

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 24

instead of low quality systems. (O’Conaill, Whittaker & Wilbur, 1993; Fullwood,

2007). As Fullwood (2007) suggests, higher-quality video-mediated communication systems should be utilized wherever possible.. Therefore in this study, the ‘Eye-catcher’ is used (figure 4) ; it works on the basis of a mirror which projects images onto a screen with a built-in camera. The camera is positioned in such a way so users look straight into the lens at all times. It allows users to talk with their partner(s) in real-time and ‘face to face’ in a sense that the Eye-catcher broadcasts and displays both parties in a high quality life size picture. This gives the impression as if users were talking to their partners in co-presence with all non-verbal behavior associated with it.

Figure 4 left: eye-catcher system, right: webcam mounted on top of screen

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 25

2.4 Mutual gaze

Mutual gaze occurs when two people are looking at each other’s eyes and it helps them to organize interactions by regulating conversational sequencing (e.g.

Duncan & Niederehe, 1974; Sellen, 1995; Bailenson et. al., 2001; Grayson & Monk,

2003; Fullwood & Doherty-Sneddon, 2006). Research demonstrates that people who exhibit high levels of mutual gaze are perceived as intimate, attentive, competent and powerful (e.g. Scherer & Schiff, 1973; Sodikoff, Firestone & Kaplan,

1974; Argyle, Lefebvre & Cook, 1974; Bailenson et. al., 2001). Besides interpersonal information, gazing behavior is an indicator of interpersonal attitude or effect (Fullwood, 2007). Depending on context, an individual may interpret gaze as a communication of interest, liking, loving, dominance or hostility. Similarly, gaze avoidance may be interpreted as indifference, evasiveness, coldness, submissiveness or defensiveness (Argyle & Cook, as cited in Vertegaal & Ding,

1976).

Mutual gaze is an signaling non-verbal cue for intimacy (e.g. Bailenson et. al.,

2001; IJselsteijn, van Baren & van Laren, 2003). The level of intimacy within any given interaction is manifested, defined and maintained by compensatory changes in behaviors such as gaze or immediacy (e.g. Argyle & Dean, 1965; Patterson, 1982;

Yee et. al., 2007). “In other words, if we get too close to a person with whom we do

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 26

not want to share high amounts of intimacy, we can avert our gaze to reduce that undesired intimacy and return to an equilibrium state” (Yee et. al., 2007). The optimal, equilibrium level is the level on which interpersonal intimacy is kept through factors as physical distance, smiling, eye contact and personal topics of conversation (Argyle & Dean, 1965; IJselsteijn, van Baren & van Lanen, 2003).

Immediacy is the psychological distance a speaker puts between himself and the hearer (Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968; IJselsteijn, van Baren & van Laren, 2003).

Wiener & Mehrabian (1968) showed that the choice of ‘we’ as opposed to ‘I’ or

‘you’ connotes a feeling of closeness and association (IJselsteijn, van Baren & van

Laren, 2003). So in terms of social presence through media, supporting intimacy and immediacy seems to be particularly relevant (IJselsteijn, van Baren & van

Laren, 2003). Therefore, it is important to enable mutual gaze via video-mediated communication because it non-verbally promotes intimacy and thus social presence. (Bailenson et. al., 2001).

In order to generate more social presence the communication media needs to be able to process rich information. As existing literature points out, the fewer communication channels or signals that are available within a given medium, the less attention users will pay to the presence of others (Short, Williams & Christie,

1976; Daft & Lengel, 1986; Blascovich et. al., 2002). Therefore, as in face to face

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 27

communication, video-mediated communication systems should support mutual gaze between two parties (Grayson and Monk, 2003). Looking into the camera will result in the perception of mutual gaze which increases feelings of co-presence

(Fullwood & Doherty-sneddon, 2006). This will make conversation partners feel at ease with each other and as a result feel able to ask for additional information or help in a shared task (Doherty-Sneddon et. al., 1997). The lack of gaze effects the video-mediated communication system’s overall usability and the naturalness of the medium (Ohno, 2005) which results in diminished sense of intimacy between remote parties (Karahalios, 2004; Mukawa et. al., 2005). In this study the focus is on investigating the effect of presence or absence of mutual gaze on perceived social presence with children, particularly their non-verbal expressiveness in playful situations (Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012).

2.5 Mutual gaze and non-verbal behavior with children

Infants are sensitive to eye gaze and by four months of age they can discriminate the direction of it (Mirenda et. al., 1983; Vecera & Johnson, 1995;

Senju et. al., 2004; Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). However, children might look mechanically in the direction of another person’s gaze or spontaneously follow it, they do not necessarily understand or recognize the other person’s attention or

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 28

share its attention with others ( Perner, 1991; Tomasello, 1995; Senju et. al., 2004).

As children become older they learn more about gaze behavior and use it as an conversation source (e.g. Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). For example, the association between gaze and liking appears to be learned (Kleinke, 1986).

Children do not use eye contact to judge affilitiation and friendship until the age of six (Abramovitch & Daly, 1978; Post & Hetherington, 1974). The amount of eye contact is lowest during the age of four and five but from this age, children are able to infer that a person is thinking about something if a person is looking upwards and sideways, even when there is no apparent object to which their gaze is directed (e.g. Ashear & Snortum, 1971; Baron-Cohen & Cross, 1992). The amount of eye contact reaches its highest level around the age of seven and eight; it decreases during early adolescence and then gradually increases to a more adult level (e.g. Ashear & Snortum, 1971; Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). Because eye gaze is used from an early age the question addressed to in this study is how the presence or absence of mutual gaze effects the perceived social presence of young children and how this relates to their non-verbal expressiveness.

There is very little research on gaze behavior of children and most studies explore this in relation with autism (e.g. Baron-Cohen, Baldwin & Crowson, 1997;

Senju et. al., 2004). Other studies investigated it in relation with face recognition

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 29

(Hood et. al., 2003) or what the role is of eye gaze in the child’s developing understanding of other minds (Pellicano & Rhodes, 2003). None of these studies explores gaze behavior of children in video-mediated communication or in a game play context except for Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts (2012). They also investigated it in relation to non-verbal behavior but in their study they make a comparison with face to face communication which is not the case in the present study. This study investigates to what extent non-verbal behavior can be indicative for the amount of fun perceived by children and how much they are involved with the game and each other.

Non-verbal communication is the transmission of information and influence by an individual’s physical and behavioral cues (Patterson, 1995). It carries the principal components of information about affect and thus offers important information on what speakers think or feel (Zajonc, 1980; Knapp & Hall, 2007). As children grow older, they acquire more knowledge about this behavior (e.g. Saarni, as cited in DePaulo, 1990) and learn more about internal states and the non-verbal behaviors that typically correspond to those states (e.g. Gnepp & Hess, 1986;

DePaulo, 1992). Non-verbal cues are also a key component to interpersonal interaction; they reduce ambiguity and thereby convey a sense of social presence of communication partners (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976; Tanis & Postmes,

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 30

2003; IJselsteijn, van Baren & van Lanen, 2003; Yee et. al., 2007). Regard to the latter, in existing literature, there is no study that has explored this in relation with children.

Studies on non-verbal behavior often explore what the communicative role is of nonverbal cues (e.g. Tanis & Postmes, 2003) or what its effect is on computer- and video-mediated communication. (e.g. Hall, 1959; Short, Williams & Christie,

1976; Williams, 1977). There is also much research on non-verbal behavior regarding affect (e.g. Zajonc, 1980). Studies on non-verbal behavior regard to children are usually related to autism (e.g. Stone et. al., 1997), parent-child communication (Bugental et. al., 1970), gender differences (e.g. DePaulo, 1992) or social norms (e.g. Gnepp & Hess, 1986). None of the studies on non-verbal behavior regard to children investigated it during video-mediated communication or in a game play context. This study explores to what extent non-verbal cues can be indicative for the amount of fun that children experience during video-mediated communication in a game play context.

2.6 The current studies

In the present study questions are addressed that arise from preceding findings. Even though there is extensive research on video-mediated

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 31

communication, very few have investigated it in a game play context. Furthermore, to explore the role of eye gaze the Eyecatcher has only been used a few times in research. In addition, little research can be found that have explored gaze behavior in video-mediated communication with children and there is no research that have investigated it in relation to non-verbal behavior. To date, no published data have demonstrated that mutual gaze enhances children’s social presence, experience of fun and how this relates to their expressiveness in video-mediated communication.

So, is perceived social presence higher when video-mediated communication enables mutual gaze? Are children more expressive because of a game play context and thereby experience more fun?

Hypothesis 1: Perceived social presence with children is higher in video-mediated

communication with mutual gaze then with no gaze or semi-realistic

gaze.

Hypothesis 2: Children are more expressive in video-mediated communication with

mutual gaze then with no gaze or semi-realistic gaze.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 32

Hypothesis 3: Children experience more fun in video-mediated communication with

mutual gaze then with no gaze or semi-realistic gaze.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 33

3. Method

3.1 Card game

To induce positive and negative expressions of emotions with children a card game will be used. It was originally developed under the name GameE which stands for ‘Games as a method for eliciting Emotions’. This game (using Adobe

Flash) has been designed for eliciting emotions in a simple but most importantly natural manner. It has already been used in previous research by Shahid et. al.

(2008) in their study exploring the effect of physical co-presence on the emotional expressions of game playing children across cultures.

Figure 5 Loosing variant of the game

The game play works as follows: the children had to guess whether the next card had a higher or lower number than the previous one. When the game started, the

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 34

children could only see the first number. Every time the children made a guess

(higher or lower) the following card in sequence revealed whether their guess was right or wrong.

Figure 6 winning variant of the game

If the children made a wrong guess, the game ended and a new game started allowing them to play again. When the players made a right guess, they were allowed to carry on with their game and guess. The children won a game whenever they made correct guesses for all six cards in a game (Shahid et. al., 2008).

The children played during the experiment six games of which they could win three times and loose three times (framework 1). When the children guessed correct or incorrect they got feedback on it by seeing the number on the card and they heard a sound; when guessed correct a cheering sound and when guessed

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 35

incorrect an ‘aahw’ (sad) sound. With every new game, the children got to see a new background and in this experiment focused on the target group (children).

Loosing scenarios: Winning scenarios:

(1) 8 – 3 – 9 – 7 – 2 – 1 (4) 9 – 2 – 8 – 1 – 10 – 7 (2) 7 – 2 – 8 – 1 – 9 – 10 (5) 1 – 3 – 9 – 2 – 7 – 6 (3) 1 – 9 – 4 – 8 – 3 – 2 (6) 3 – 8 – 2 – 10 – 9 – 4

Framework 1 winning, losing scenarios

3.2 Equipment

For conducting the experiment two separate rooms were used. Each room had internet connection, both wireless and with cable. Making connection with internet through cable was necessary because both Eyecatchers are unable to make wireless connection. The internet was used for establishing audio and video connection in order to enable participants to collaborate with each other over a distance. Participants could collaborate with one another through the use of

Eyecatchers which enabled them to look each other in the eye; the camera of the

Eyecatcher is situated in the middle, behind the screen. The Eyecatcher also

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 36

enabled participants to talk with each other because it has a microphone and built- in speakers. In both rooms the experimental set-up was arranged in the same way but one room was divided into two separate sections. This was done by using a room separator (black curtain) in order to create working space for observing the experiment and to manipulate the card game without being noticed.

3.2.1 Room 1

One laptop, one Eyecatcher and one camcorder were placed in room 1. The laptop (running on Windows 7) was being used to display the card game and to make recordings of the participants by using Windows Live Movie Maker. By making use of the laptop’s webcam, Windows Live Movie Maker recorded the participant’s face and shoulders. The second recordings were made by a camcorder on a tripod placed behind the laptop to record the participant’s face and upper part of his or her body. Every participant in this room sat behind the laptop with a small distance between the participant and the laptop. The Eyecatcher was placed next to the participant with the camera on eye-level; this in order to enable participants to really look each other in the eye and see the upper part of the body.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 37

Figure 7 experimental setup: room 1 (above), room 2 (below)

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 38

Figure 8 room 1: left: ‘s-Hertogenbosch, right: Halsteren

3.2.2 Room 2

Room 2 is in terms of experimental set-up identical to room 1 except room 2 was divided into two sections. Also, the participants in room 2 saw the game on a

19-inch screen which was connected to a laptop (running on Windows 7) that was placed behind the room separator. Behind the room separator two laptops

(running on Windows 7) were placed in order to control the experiments. These laptops were being used to control the game and to make recordings with

Windows Live Movie Maker in both rooms. The laptop that controlled the card game in room 1 used Team Viewer for manipulating the game over a distance.

3.3 Participants

In total 38 children participated in the experiments. All of them belonged to

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 39

the same target age group of seven to eight years old. All children were Dutch; some of them had a different cultural background. The children played in pairs (19 pairs in total) which were randomly chosen by the experimenter.

3.4 Procedure

The experiment was conducted on two different locations; one elementary school in ‘s-Hertogenbosch and one in Halsteren (the Netherlands). The procedure was for all the pairs the same and they were formed by the teacher of each school.

Every pair was picked up by the experimenter at their classroom and then they were guided to room 2. When they arrived at the room, they were welcomed and they were seated behind the computer screen. A small introduction took place and the children were given the opportunity to introduce themselves. Also the experiment and assistant introduced themselves to the children.

After introducing, the children were given an introduction on the card game.

They were being explained that they were going to play a simple computer game and that they could collaborate with each other through the use of the eye-catcher.

The children were told that the collaboration will take place over a distance and that they have to use the eye-catcher in order to work together. After introducing

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 40

them to the card game they were explained on how to play it; the rules were being explained and also that they could win a reward afterwards.

The rules that they had follow were that (1) they could not guess higher than ten, (2) they could not guess lower than one, (3) they could not guess the same number twice and (4) the children could not guess the number zero. Once the children understood the rules a test game was started in order to see whether the children really understood the game play and to demonstrate what they were about to do. After the test game, the children could ask any question concerning the game play. Once the children understood that they had to collaborate over a distance and how to play the game, one of the children was being escorted to room

1. The other child remained in room 2. The child in room 1 was seated in the same way as the child in room 2.

The children were given an opportunity to explore the Eyecatcher and when they appeared ready to play the game the assistant left room 1. The experimenter in room 2 started the experiment after the assistant left room 1 and controlled the card game in the separated section in room 2.

There was no pre-set time for the duration of each game session because every pair was different. With every game session it took a different amount of time to complete it.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 41

Figure 10 left: winning game, right: losing game (recording from eye-catcher with Windows Live Movie Maker)

In general, each session took approximately 20 minutes. At the end of every game session, the child in room 1 was picked up by the assistant and brought back to room 2. In room 2 the children filled in a questionnaire especially designed for children and they received a lollipop as a thank you for participating the card game. The questionnaire was read to them because not all children could read properly. When they finished filling in the questionnaire they received a small

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 42

reward but it was not just handed over to them. They had to find their reward in a

‘grab-box’; one especially for boys and one for girls.

Figure 11 left: reading questionnaire, right: grabbox with presents (blue for boys, colored for girls)

3.5 Video coding: observation scheme

The observation scheme used for analyzing all the recordings of the experiments is to quantify behavior in terms of their (1) affective responses to winning or losing a game and (2) the children’s social interactions during gameplay (Shahid, 2012). This scheme is the same as developed by Shahid et. al.

(as cited in Shahid, 2011) who have based a part of it on an existing coding scheme and extended it based on informal observations of video clips from various conditions.

The observation scheme consists out of two parts. The first part is to analyze the recordings on emotional cues and classifies two main categories: (1)

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 43

positive affects (with subcategories smiling, laughter, clapping, jumping/moving, winning gesture and verbal response) and (2) negative affects (with subcategories sadness, anger, closing eyes, covering face, head down and verbal response).

The second part is to analyze the recordings on social interaction cues during gameplay and classifies the following two categories: (1) connectedness

(with subcategories (virtual) touching, thumbs up and waving) and (2) responsiveness (with subcategories stool moved, turning to partner, eye fixation and turn taking).

The selected fragments (first winning and first losing game: from the point the last card is shown to the end of their reaction) are coded on the presence of these features. During coding, the unit of analysis was always one child (one player) (Shahid, 2012).

3.6 Measurements

The questionnaire of which the children were asked to fill in was adapted and has been previously used by Shahid et. al. (as cited in Shahid, 2011). It consisted out of two parts classified into nine categories. The first part was to measure fun after playing the games and to evaluate their overall game experience. The first two questions for fun measurements were mapped on a 1-7 Likert scale where 1

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 44

represented ‘no fun at all’ and 7 represented ‘a lot of fun’. The other two questions for fun measurements were mapped on a 5 point Likert scale. For evaluating the overall game experience, five questions (on a 5 point Likert scale) were asked to measure (1) endurability and (2) engagement.

The second part of the questionnaire was to evaluate the children’s social experience, perceived social presence and connectedness (Shahid et. al., as cited in

Shahid, 2011). This part consisted out of nine questions (on a 5 point Likert scale) to measure (3) perceived co-presence (my playmate has seen me), (2) attentional allocation (I have paid attention to my playmate all the time), (3) perceived message understanding (I well understood what my playmate meant), (4) perceived affective understanding (my playmate knew how I felt), (5) perceived emotional interdependence (how I felt, influenced our game) and (6) perceived behavioral interdependence (my playmate did a lot of things because I did them first). The answers to the questions were expressed in smileys.

Figure 10 answers children could give expressed in smileys

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 45

3.7 Statistical analysis

In the case of the questionnaires, all signifance tests were performed using a repeated measurement analysis of variance (ANOVA). To test for significance on the fun scores three were conducted with one between subject factors, namely presence (levels: no-gaze, gaze, eye-catcher) and with the mean of the fun, engagement and endurability scores as the dependent variables. All pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni. The results for the no gaze and semi-ideal gaze conditions were provided by Shahid (2012).

3.8 Results

Overall, the experimental set-up and the card game worked properly except for establishing an internet connection for the eye-catchers. Because the

Eyecatchers could not work on wireless internet it took a longer amount of time to establish a connection. Not all rooms of the schools had a working cable entry and sometimes the eye-catchers lost connection with each other.

All the children understood the concept of collaborating over a distance through the use of the eye-catchers (through VMC). Also, none of the participants noticed or reported that the game session was being manipulated by the

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 46

experimenter. In all cases, children could easily talk, hear and see each other and they could also easily work together.

Informal observations of the video recordings made it noticeable that the children were also particularly interested in the background displayed. They really liked to share what kind of background they had with their game partner. The video recordings show that this had no influence on their gaming.

Categories: Conditions fun and overall game No gaze Semi-ideal Ideal gaze experience Gaze

Fun 5.55 (.80) 6.45 (.65) 6.58 (.68)

Engagement 4.03 (.72) 4.55 (.55) 4.62 (.49)

Endurability 3.95 (.80) 4.66 (.48) 4.74 (.46)

Table 1 Average fun scores (with SD) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very negative, 7 = very positive) + average fun scores (with SD on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very negative, 5 = very positive). Engagement and endurability scores (with SD) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very negative, 5 = very positive).

Table 1 summarizes the results on the fun, engagement and endurability questions and shows a rather consistent picture. The children reported having most fun while playing in the ideal gaze condition (M = 6.58, SD = .68) but this is almost equal to the amount of fun they experienced while playing in the semi-ideal gaze

condition (M = 6.45, SD = .65), F (2, 111) = 23.47, p < .001, ηp² = .30. The children

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 47

had the least fun while playing in the no gaze condition (M = 5.55, SD = .80). The pairwise comparisons which are statistically significant are between the no gaze condition and semi-ideal gaze condition and between the no gaze condition and ideal gaze condition.

On the children’s’ level of engagement, the results show that they were almost equally engaged with each other in the semi-ideal gaze condition (M = 4.55,

SD = .55) and the ideal gaze condition (M =4.62, SD = .49). Compared to the semi- ideal gaze and ideal gaze condition, the children’s level of engagement in the no gaze condition was relatively low (M = 4.03, SD = .72), F (2, 111) = 11,37, p < .001,

ηp² = .17. The no gaze vs. semi-ideal gaze and no gaze vs. ideal gaze comparisons are statistically significant.

For the endurability dimension (interest in playing the game again), the children who played in the ideal gaze condition showed the most interest in playing again (M = 7.74, SD = .46). The children in the no gaze condition were least interested in playing the game again (M = 3.95, SD = .80). In between are the children who played in the semi-ideal gaze condition (M = 4.66, SD = .48), F (2,

111) = 19,78, p < .001, ηp² = .26. The no gaze vs. semi-ideal gaze and no gaze vs. ideal gaze comparisons are statistically significant.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 48

Social Conditions presence dimensions No gaze Gaze Eye-catcher

Co-presence 4.05 (.73) 4.53 (.51) 4.76 (.43)

Message 4.26 (.72) 4.39 (.64) 4.58 (.56) Understanding

Affect 3.79 (.78) 4.50 (.56) 4.26 (.96) Understanding

Partner 1.92 (.40) 3.84 (.87) 3.25 (.43) Evaluation

Table 2 mean (and SD) of the four categories on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very negative, 5 = very positive)

Table 2 describes the results on the social presence dimensions. The children were most involved and felt the presence of their partner the strongest in the ideal gaze condition (M = 4.76, SD = .43). They were less involved and felt the presence of their partner less stronger in the semi-ideal gaze condition (M = 4.53, SD = .51) followed by the no gaze condition (M = 4.05, SD = .73), F (2, 111) = 15,24, p < .001,

ηp² = .22. The statistically significant pairwise comparisons are no gaze vs. semi- ideal gaze and no gaze vs. ideal gaze.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 49

There is no statistical significant difference between the no gaze, semi-ideal gaze and ideal gaze condition concerning message understanding F (1,111) = 2.30, p =

.11, ηp² = .04. On the affect understanding dimension, children did indicate that they were better able to understand the emotional state of their partner in the semi-ideal gaze condition (M = 4.50, SD = .56) followed by the ideal gaze condition

(M = 4.26, SD = .96) and the no gaze condition (M = 3.79, SD = .78), F (2,111) = 8.10,

p = .001, ηp² = .13. The pairwise comparison between no gaze vs. semi-ideal gaze is statistically significant.

In the gaze condition on the partner evaluation dimension, children trusted their game partners and appreciated their involvement the most (M = 3.84, SD =

1.87) followed by the ideal gaze condition (M = 3.25, SD = .43). Trust and appreciation was the least in the no gaze condition ( M = 1.92, SD = 1.40), F =

(2,113) = 14,80, p = .001, ηp² = .21. Almost all comparisons were statistically significant except for the semi-ideal gaze vs. ideal gaze condition (MD = .59, SE =

.36, p = .30 (p <.05)).

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 50

Affect Features Game Playing Conditions Category No gaze Gaze Eye-catcher Positive Smile (happy) 14 19 20 Laugh 2 11 7 Clapping 3 11 8 Jumping/Moving 3 12 11 Winning Gesture 4 11 14 Verbal response 3 10 15

Total Positive Features 29 74 75

Negative Sad (frown) 16 18 17 Anger 3 3 2 Closing eyes 4 12 7 Covering face 3 10 8 Head down 3 6 4 Verbal response 4 12 18

Total negative features 33 61 56

Total visual features 62 135 131

Table 3 positive and negative features shown by children during their gameplay

In table 3 the number and type of visual features can be seen for both the positive and negative effects shown by children. These visual features are related to the affect the children displayed in the three conditions (no gaze, semi-ideal gaze and ideal gaze condition) during game play.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 51

4. Discussion

This study investigated the experience of children while playing a card game with a classmate. The children played in three different conditions which were compared in this study: (1) the no gaze condition in which children played the card game using video-mediated communication but eye-contact (eye gaze and mutual gaze) was not possible, (2) the semi-ideal gaze condition wherein children played the card game using video-mediated communication with eye gaze but mutual gaze was not possible and (3) the ideal gaze condition in which children played the card game via video-mediated communication using the eye-catcher with the possibility of mutual gaze.

The general results were consistent but it did not live up to expectations. In the no gaze condition, children seem to enjoy playing the card game the least. Their experience of enjoyment and appreciations is comparable between the semi-ideal gaze condition and ideal gaze condition. Even though results showed no significant difference between the semi-ideal gaze and ideal gaze condition, the children experienced more fun, were more engaged and were more interested in playing the game again in the ideal gaze condition compared to the semi-ideal and no gaze condition. Although not all results are statistically significant, the findings of this study are in line with the hypothesis stating that children would experience more

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 52

fun in video-mediated communication with mutual gaze then with no gaze or semi- realistic gaze. Also in line with the social presence theory (Short, Williams &

Christie, 1976) and media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986); the children had more access to non-verbal cues due to the Eyecatcher that had the ability to process rich information and as both theories point out, appropriate communication media for certain task activities helps to achieve optimal communication efficiency and satisfaction (Rice, 1993). More importantly the

Eyecatcher has the ability to enable mutual gaze; the presence of mutual gaze increases users’ satisfaction and pleasantness of tasks (e.g. Bailenson et. al., 2001,

Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012).

The results on the second part of the questionnaires showed that the absence and presence of mutual gaze had an effect on perceived social presence by the children. Children reported to be more connected to each other in the ideal gaze condition compared to the no gaze and semi-ideal gaze condition. This is in line with the hypothesis stating that the perceived social presence with children is higher in video-mediated communication with mutual gaze then with no gaze or semi-realistic gaze. Almost all children felt the presence of their game partner the strongest in the ideal gaze condition. Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts (2012) also found similar results in their study which showed that the absence or presence of mutual

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 53

gaze had a direct effect on the perceived intimacy and closeness of children

(Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). Bondareva et. al. (2006) also found similar results on perceived social absence with adults. Furthermore, these findings are consistent with previous studies that point out that mutual gaze via video- mediated communication non-verbally promotes intimacy and therefore social presence (e.g. Bailenson et. al., 2001; IJselsteijn, van Baren & van Laren, 2003).

In all three mediated conditions, children had no problem with understanding each other’s messages. This means that mutual gaze and a lower level of social presence does not affect perceived message understanding. Shahid,

Krahmer & Swerts (2012) found similar results in their study regard to mediated conditions in relation with mutual gaze and social presence. Other visual cues instead of mutual gaze, system characteristics and the children’s own capacity could have helped them with understanding each other (Wise et. al., 2004).

Furthermore, the card game did not require extensive explanation which could have had an positive effect on ‘perceived understanding’ (Shahid, Krahmer &

Swerts, 2012). Whittaker (1995) pointed out that mutual gaze might be of less importance because turn taking should be easy with a well structured task with only two people conversing. This could also be a logical explanation for message understanding in these three mediated conditions.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 54

Surprisingly, results on affect understanding showed that children were better able to understand the emotional state of their remote partner in the semi- ideal gaze condition then in the ideal gaze condition. However, it must be noted that results on both conditions are comparable. The lack of mutual gaze influences affective understanding negatively. These findings show that eye gaze not only has a communicative function of interpersonal information but is also an indicator of interpersonal attitude and effect (Fullwood, 2007).

Other surprising results are revealed by the game play context; children trusted their game partner the most in the semi-ideal gaze condition followed by the ideal gaze condition. As with affect understanding, it must be noted that results on both conditions are comparable. Children trusted their game partner the least in the no gaze condition. In addition, children appreciated the involvement of their game partner the most in the semi-ideal gaze condition compared to the ideal gaze condition but also here are both conditions comparable. They appreciated the involvement of their partner the least in the no gaze condition. These findings suggest that true mutual gaze is not completely necessary to establish trust and appreciation for remote partners. Some kind of mutual gaze by desktop video conferencing equipment shows to be sufficient enough to discriminate when a

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 55

communication partner is looking at them and establish trust and appreciation

(Grayson and Monk, 2003).

The results on positive and negative (visual and verbal) features those expressed by the children were far more visible in both the semi-ideal gaze and ideal gaze condition then in the no gaze condition. This is partially in line with the hypothesis stating that children are more expressive in video-mediated communication with mutual gaze then with no gaze or semi-realistic gaze. The reason for this is because results show that children are more expressive in the semi-ideal gaze condition then the ideal gaze condition. Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts

(2012) performed a perception test to investigate the effect of presence or absence of mutual gaze. Even though no perception test was performed in this study their results implied that with the presence of mutual gaze children were very expressive while playing and the absence of gaze had a negative effect on their emotional expressiveness ( Shahid, Krahmer & Swerts, 2012). These results are in line with the findings in this study and the stated hypothesis.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 56

5. Conclusion and future work

This study explored the effect of eye gaze on perceived social presence, emotional expressions, social interaction and game playing behavior of children during video-mediated communication. A card game was used to let children play in three different conditions. After playing the games, the children filled in questionnaires and their subjective responses on fun, engagement and social presence were collected and analyzed. Furthermore, the video data was coded along affective interaction dimensions in a observational analysis.

The results showed that the semi-ideal gaze condition and ideal gaze condition are comparable in terms of perceived social presence and connectedness. These two conditions compared to the no gaze condition revealed that children and their remote partner felt least connected with each other in this condition and that their social bond was low. Furthermore, in both the semi-ideal gaze and ideal gaze condition, children showed comparable rich social and affective behavior compared to the no gaze condition.

The present study yields interesting insights on eye gaze and its role in video-mediated game play. Findings in this study are an addition to existing literature on gazing behavior with children. Its relevance can be found in the insights it provides on the role of eye gaze in social presence perceived by young

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 57

children and how they express themselves in a non professional game task. This study suggests that true mutual gaze is of importance for establishing social presence with children and to provide a joyful video-mediated game play for them.

Nevertheless, eye gaze that closely resembles true mutual gaze can be sufficient enough to establish the same conditions. Almost mutual gaze is sufficient enough and true mutual gaze does not add an extra dimension or gives higher experience in the quality of interaction. These results confirm the supposition of Shahid,

Krahmer & Swerts (2012) that a less ideal form of mutual gaze appears to be enough for playful tasks and contexts and does not add much to the overall game playing experience.

It must be noted that the Eyecatcher was new to the children so it is hard to tell that the more positive outcome in the Eyecatcher condition is due to the novelty of it. Suggestion for further analysis can be as to why children have a more positive experience with the Eyecatcher but not high enough to be statistically significant. Furthermore, the Eyecatcher could not establish gaze awareness. The children could only see what their remote partner was looking at (the card game) but they had no access to visual cues from proximity, full body size and context.

Finally, these results can be used for further research on educational or

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 58

professional purposes for instance with regard to remote teaching, business conferencing or (remote) educational gaming.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 59

Acknowledgments

While writing this thesis I received great guidance and I am really grateful for all the help and support. First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Shahid for all his effort. I would really like to thank him for this opportunity and his great guidance. I would also like to thank Rens van Bijsteren, Aurin Fouraschen and Jiri van Wezel. When I needed help the most these good friends were always there for me. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for always believing in me and the moral support.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 60

References

Abramovitch, R., & Daly, E. M. (1978). Children's use of head orientation and eye contact in making attributions of affiliation. Child Development, 519-522.

Anderson, A., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., Fleming, A., Doherty-Sneddon, G. & van der Velden, J. (1996). Impact of video-mediated communication on simulated service encounters. Interacting with Computers, 8(2), 193-206. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/095354389601 0259

Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y. & Cheng, Meng-Tzu (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53, 74-85. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020

Argyle, M. & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. American Sociological Association, 28(3), 289-304

Argyle, M., Lalljee, M. & Cook, M. (1968). The effects of visibility on interaction in a dyad. Sage publication: human relations, 21(3). doi: 10.1177/001872676802100101

Argyle, M., Lefebvre, L. & Cook, M. (1974). The meaning of five patterns of gaze. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4(2), 125-136.

Ashear, V. & Snortum, J. (1971). Eye-contact in children as a function of age, sex, social and intellective variables. Developmental Psychology, 4(3), 479

Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C. & Loomis, J. M. (2001). Equilibrium theory revisited: mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 10(6), 583-598. doi: 10.1162/105474601753272844

Baron-Cohen, S. & Cross, P. (1992). Reading the eyes: evidence for the role of perception in the development of a theory of mind. Mind & Language, 7(1- 2), 172-186. doi: 10.1111/j. 1468-0017.1992.tb00203.x

Baron-Cohen, S., Baldwin, D. A. & Crowson, M. (1997). Do children with autism use the speaker’s direction of gaze strategy to crack the code of language? Child Development, 68(1), 48-57

Biocca, F., Harms, C. & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456-480. doi: 10.1162/105474603322761270

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 61

Biocca, F., Harms, C. & Gregg, J. (2001). The networked minds measure of social presence: pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. In 4th annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA.

Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A. C., Swinth, K. R., Hoyt, C. L. & Bailenson, J. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13(2), 103-124

Bondareva, Y., Meesters, L. & Bouwhuis, D. (2006). Eye-contact as a determinant of social presence in video communication. Human Factors in Telecommunication (HFT).

Bugental, D. E., Kaswan, J. W., Love, L. R. & Fox, M. N. (1970). Child versus adult perception of evaluative messages in verbal, vocal and visual channels. Developmental Psychology, 2(3), 367-375

Burge, J. D. (2007). Communication of emotion in mediated and technology-mediated contexts: face-to-face, telephone, and instant messaging (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd- 06102007-180720/unrestricted/JB_Final_Dissertation_2007.pdf

Buxton, W. & Moran, T. (1990, September). EuroPARC’s integrated interactive intermedia facility (iiif): early experiences. Proceedings of the IFIP WG, 8, 11-34

Daft, R. & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, (32)5, 554-571

Derks, D., Bos, A. E. R. & von Grumbkow, J. (2004). Emoticons and social interaction on the internet: the importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 842-849

Derks, D., Fischer, A. H. & Bos, A. E. R. (2008). The role of emotion in computer- mediated communication: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 766- 785. Retrieved from http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/a.h.fischer/bestanden/Derks%20Fischer %20Bos%202008.pdf

DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 203-243

Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A., O’Malley C., Garrod, S., Bruce, V. & Langton, S. (1997). Face to face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(2), 105-125. doi: 10.1037/1076898x.3.2.105

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 62

Duncan, S. & Niederehe, G. (1974). On signaling that it’s your turn to speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 234-247. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103174900705

Fels, D. I. & Weiss, P. L. T. (2001). Video-mediated communication in the classroom to support sick children: a case study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 251-263

Fullwood, C. (2007). The effect of mediation on impression formation: A comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated conditions. Applied Ergonomics, 38, 267-273. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687006001116

Fullwood, C. & Doherty-Sneddon, G. (2006). Effect of gazing at the camera during a video link on recall. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 167-175

Fussell, S. R., Kraut, R. E. & Siegel, J. (2000). Coordination of communication: effects of shared visual context on collaborative work. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 21-30

Gnepp, J. & Hess, D. L. R. (1986). Children’s understanding of verbal and facial display rules. Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 103-108

Grayson, D. & Coventry, L. (1999). The effects of visual proxemic information in video-mediated communication. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(3), 30-39

Grayson, D. M. & Monk, A. F. (2003). Are you looking at me? Eye contact and desktop video conferencing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10 (3), 221-243. Retrieved from http://www.hci.otago.ac.nz/info340/Lecture_19_cICT/2003_Grayson Monk_TOCHI_10_3_Sept2003_EyeContactDesktopVideoConferencing_p221- m_grayson.pdf

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language in overseas business. New York: Doubleday

Herring, S. C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/

Hian, L., Chuan, S., Trevor, T., & Detenber, B. (2004). Getting to know you: Exploring the development of rational intimacy in computer mediated communication. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9(3). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue3/detenber.html

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 63

Hood, B. M., Macrae, C. N., Cole-Davies, V. & Dias, M. (2003). Eye remember you: the effects of gaze direction on face recognition in children and adults. Developmental Science, 6(1), 69-73

Ishii, H. & Kobayashi, M. (1992). Clearboard: a seamless medium for shared drawing and conversation with eye-contact. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 525-532

Ishii, H., Kobayashi, M., & Grudin, J. (1993). Integration of interpersonal space and shared workspace: Clear Board design and experiments. Journal of Transactions on Information Systems, 11(4), 349-375. doi: 10.1145/159764.159762

IJsselsteijn, W., van Baren, J. & van Lanen, F. (2003). Staying in touch: social presence and connectedness through synchronous and asynchronous communication media. Human-Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice (Part II), 2, 924-928

Johanson, M. (2003). Supporting video-mediated communication over the internet (Doctoral dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden).Retrieved from http://www1.arl.wustl.edu/~gorinsky/cited/UFLM_Johanson_Dissertation _2003.pdf

Kandola, P. (2009). Successful video communication. Retrieved from Cisco Systems Inc. website: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2009/ekits/Video_ Communication.pdf

Karahalios, K. G. (2004). Social catalysts: enhancing communication in mediated spaces. (Doctorial dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.)

Kierkels, D. & van Bommel, L. (2010). Affective gaming: using games as a tool for inducing emotions (Master’s thesis, Tilburg University, the Netherlands)

Kim, J., Kwon, Y. & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57, 1512-1520

Kleinke, C. (1986). Gaze and eye-contact: a research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1). 78-100

Kleinke, C. L., Desautels, M. S. & Knapp, B. E. (1977). Adult gaze and affective and visual responses of preschool children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 131(2), 321-322

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 64

Kleinke, C. & Pohlen, P. (1971). Affective and emotional responses as a function of other person’s gaze and cooperativeness in a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(3), 308-313. doi:1037/h0030600

Knapp, M. L. & Hall, J. A. (2007). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Wadsworth: Thomas learning

Krantz, M., George, S. W. & Hursh, K. (1983). Gaze and mutual gaze of preschool children in conversation. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 113(1), 9-15

Kreijn, K. (2004). Sociable CSCL environments: social affordances, sociability and social presence (Doctorial dissertation, Open Universiteit Nederland, the Netherlands). Retrieved from http://dspace.learningnetworks.org/bitstream/1820/1030/1/Dissertation %20Kreijns%202004.pdf

Lea, M. & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(2), 283-301. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020737391900459

Manstead, T. (2005). The social dimension of emotion. The Psychologist, 18(8), 484-487

Mirenda, P. L., Donnellan, A. M., & Yoder, D. E. (1983). Gaze behavior: A new look at an old problem. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 13(4), 397-409.

Monk, A. F. & Gale, C. (2002). A look is worth a thousand words: full gaze awareness in video-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 33(3), 257-278. doi: 10.1207/s15326950DP3303_4

McCulloch, M. S. & Oborne, D. J. (1999). Video conferencing systems: telepresence and selection interviews. Contemporary Ergonomics, 133-137

McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s mass communication theory. (5th ed.). London, England: SAGE. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer- mediated_communication#cite_note-0

Mukawa, N., Oka, T., Arai, K. & Yuasa, M. (2005). What is connected by mutual gaze?: User’s behavior in video-mediated communication. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on human factors in computing systems. (pp. 1677-1680). doi: 10.1145/1056808.1056995

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 65

O’Conaill, B., Whittaker, S. & Wilbur, S. (1993). Conversations over video conferences: an evaluation of the spoken aspects of video-mediated communication. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 389-428

Ohno, T. (2005). Weak gaze awareness in video-mediated communication. CHI’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 1709-1712

Olsen, J. S., Olsen, G. M. & Meader, D. K. (1995). What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work? Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 362-368

O’Malley, C., Langton, S., Anderson, A., Doherty-Sneddon, G. & Bruce, V. (1996). Comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated interaction. Interacting with Computers, 8(2), 177-192

Patterson, M. L. (1995). Invited article: a parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of nonverbal behavior, 19(1), 3-29

Pellicano, E. & Rhodes, G. (2003). The role of eye gaze in understanding other minds. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 33-43

Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind (Vol. 29). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Post, B., & Hetherington, E. M. (1974). Sex differences in the use of proximity and eye contact in judgments of affiliation in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 74

Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451-484

Rice, R. & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: socioemotional content in a computer-mediated network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108

Rimé, B., Mesquita, B., Philippot, P. & Boca, s. (1991). Beyond the emotional event: Six studies of the social sharing of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 435- 465

Rosenthal, A. H. (1947). Two way communication. U.S. Patent No. 2,420,198. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press.

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 66

Scherer, S. E. & Schiff M. R. (1973). Perceived intimacy, physical distance and eye contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36, 835-841

Sellen, A. J. (1995). Remote conversations: the effects of mediating talk with technology. Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 401-444

Senju, A., Tojo, Y., Dairoku, H. & Hasegawa, T. (2004). Reflexive orienting in response to eye gaze and an arrow in children with and without autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(3), 445-458

Shahid, S. (2012). Fun & face: exploring non-verbal expressions of emotion during playful interactions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tilburg, the Netherlands). Tilburg, the Netherlands: CPI Wöhrmann

Shahid, S., Krahmer, E., Swerts, M. (2008). Alone or together: exploring the effect of physical co-presence on the emotional expressions of game playing children across cultures. In P. Markopoulous (Ed.), Fun and Games (pp. 94- 105). Berlin, Germany: Springer

Shahid, S., Krahmer, E. & Swerts, M. (2012). Video-mediated and co-present gameplay: effects of mutual gaze on game experience, expressiveness, and perceived social presence. Interacting with computers, 24, 292-305

Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Contemporary Sociology.

Stafford, L. (2004). Communication competencies and sociocultural priorities of middle childhood. Handbook of family communication, 311-332

Stone, W. L., Ousley, O. Y., Yoder, P. J., Hogan, K. L. & Hepburn, S. L. (1997). Nonverbal communication in two- and three-year old children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27(6), 677-696

Sodikoff, C. L., Firestone, I. J. & Kaplan, K. J. (1974). Distance matching and distance equilibrium in the interview dyad. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1(1), 243-245. doi: 10.1177/014616727400100183

Tanis, M. & Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication. 676-693

Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. Joint attention: Its origins and role in development, 103-130.

Tu, Chih-Hsiung (2002). The relationship between social presence and online privacy. Internet and Higher education, 5, 293-318

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 67

Tu, Chih-Hsiung & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150

Vecera, S. P., & Johnson, M. H. (1995). Gaze detection and the cortical processing of faces: Evidence from infants and adults. Visual Cognition, 2(1), 59-87.

Vertegaal, R. (1999). The GAZE groupware system: mediating joint attention in multiparty communication and collaboration. Proceedings of the 1999 conference on human factors in computing systems. (pp. 294-301). doi: 10.1145/302979.303065

Vertegaal, R., van der Veer, G. & Vons, H. (2000). Effects of gaze on multiparty mediated communication. Proceedings of the Graphics Interface 2000.

Vertegaal, R. & Ding, Y. (2002). Explaining effects of eye gaze on mediated group conversations: amount or synchronization?. Proceedings of the 2002 conference on computer supported cooperative work. (pp. 41-48). doi:10.1145/587078.587085

Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 5(3), 6-18

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90. doi: 10.1177/009365092019001003

Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6(2), 168-203. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2635121.pdf

Whittaker, S. (1995). Rethinking video as a technology for interpersonal communications: theory and design implications. Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 42, 501-529

Wichman, H. (1970). Effects of isolation and communication on cooperation in a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 114- 120. doi: 10.1037/h0029845

Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparisons of face to face and mediated communication: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 34(5), 963-976

Wise, A. C., Duffy, T. & Valle, R. D. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 247-271

The role of eye gaze in social presence established by video-mediated communication 68

Yarosh, S., Inkpen, K. M. & Brush, A. J. (2010). Video playdate: toward free play across distance. Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems, 1251-1260

Yee, N., Bailenson, J. Urbanek, M., Chang, F. & Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being digital: the persistence of non-verbal social norms in online virtual environments. Cyberpsychology and behavior, 10(1). doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9984

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175