Virtual Communication 1
Running head: VIRTUAL COMMUNICATION
Virtual Communication
Conceptualizing the Effects of Information Technology
on the Conditions for Communication
Björn Bengtsson
Umeå University
Department of Computing Science
S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
Phone: +46 90 786 99 15
E-mail: bjorn@cs.umu.se
Virtual Communication 2
Abstract
This paper presents the notion of virtual communication as
communication in which one or more parties deviate so strongly from
the perceived interlocutor that the communication becomes untrue to
reality in some respects. Virtual communication is also implicit,
where behaviors and actions communicate intentions and values. It is
the premise of this investigation that modern information technology
reinforce such phenomena. The paper reports some observations made
during a literature review of related work. These observations yield
implications for socio-psychological studies of computer-mediated
communication and computer-supported cooperative work. In addition,
the paper exemplifies the application of a virtual communication
perspective by discussing and extending Walther's (1996) concept of
"hyperpersonal" communication. Finally, some general conclusions are
drawn about the impact of virtual communication on interpersonal
relations.
Virtual Communication 3
Virtual Communication
Conceptualizing the Effects of Information Technology
on the Conditions for Communication
Modern information technology allows more and more people to
communicate with each other in ever-new ways. The most prominent
feature of the so called "information society" is an increasingly
intense and mobile communication, based on a multitude of media and
forms of expression--speech, text, pictures, hypermedia, multimedia,
etc. Sometimes the communication is direct; human-to-human:
Sometimes it is not so direct.
Beyond this maze of colorful, innovative, yet regular
conversations, there are deviant, irregular forms of conversation,
growing in importance. Beside the "real" communication an "unreal,"
virtual communication is taking place. This is communication in
which one or more parties are non-real, fictive, or deviates so
strongly from the perceived interlocutor that the communication
becomes imagined or untrue to reality in one or more respects. It is
also implicit communication, where behaviors and actions communicate
intentions, values, and beliefs. These phenomena are not completely
new, but they are reinforced through modern information technology.
Thus, they may be of great importance in affecting peoples'
attitudes toward each other, toward information and culture, and
toward the mechanisms and processes that regulate the functioning of
society.
The notion of virtual communication is perhaps best described
by sketching some examples that illustrate the most salient features
of these emerging phenomena. Following are a few points in case.
Virtual Communication 4
No well-defined source
Through modern information technology, we encounter information in
shapes that, in reality, have no well defined, simple, or clearly
delimited transmitter or source. These are, for instance, messages
that have been generated by computers; that have been gathered from
information in different databases; collective cut-and-paste
creations; synthetic faces and voices, etc. It is the premise of
this paper that we continue to try and interpret these messages and
expressions using the same kind of pragmatics that we use when
trying to understand individual human agents. This way, "virtual
agents" or "virtual wills" (Janlert, 1995) appear as backward
projections of the expressions we observe (see Figure 1). At this
point in time, our experience of dealing with such virtual agents is
limited, and some of the experiences we do have are problematic.
One example is email management packages featuring "automated
personalized responses." These packages attempt to read incoming
messages, classify them, and route them to appropriate service
agents (with suggested answers), or respond directly to them. Other
examples of virtual agents are "the market" and "public opinion."
These are entities that, despite their ethereal quality, play a very
substantial role in our lives. What is truly fascinating about them
is that modern information and communication technologies play a
crucial role in creating and maintaining them, through intentional
feedback loops that we do not seem to completely understand or
control, leading to uncertainty and frustration.
Insert Figure 1 here
Virtual Communication 5
Intelligent agents
Researchers and practitioners in artificial intelligence and humancomputer interaction are developing and employing increasingly
complex and autonomous software agents (e.g., Maes, 1994;
Liebermann, 1997). More and more, such agents are being incorporated
into computer interfaces at various levels, and unleashed in
computer networks. These "intelligent agents" are per definition
virtual agents and with many of them we can (and must) communicate.
As long as the interlocutor is aware of being engaged in virtual
communication, this situation is perhaps less problematic than in
other cases. Even so, one tends to stay unaware of how one's
attitudes adapt to the situation.
A main concern in the design of human-agent dialogue is that
users are provided with means appropriate for realistically judging
the competence of their computer partners. This is especially true
given the tendency for people to respond to media, computers, and
other communication technologies in fundamentally social ways, as
demonstrated by Nass and colleagues (e.g., Nass, Steuer & Tauber,
1994; Nass, Fogg & Moon, 1996). To the extent that people's
assessments of others are based on appearance or behavioral
heuristics there is a very real chance that users will be mislead
when applying such heuristics to interface agents and grossly
overestimate their interaction partner's abilities. This prompts
investigations of the impact of autonomous and anthropomorphic
interfaces, with a special interest in the influence they might have
on users, in terms of credibility, trust, understanding, and user
expectations (see, e.g., Bengtsson, Burgoon, Cederberg, Bonito &
Lundeberg, 1999).
Virtual Communication 6
What you see is what I want you to see
Using modern information technology we can control interfaces to
such an extent that what would normally constitute "real" human-tohuman communication is virtualized. Interestingly enough, there are
two competing modes of control; the transmitter's control of his or
her appearance and expressions, and the receiver's control of how
the incoming information is to be filtered and presented. A simple
example is the use of e-mail filters. This raises the question of
how to combine the desire to look the way you want with the desire
to see what you want. In some cases, perhaps communication will come
to mean a meeting (war) of interfaces, rather than a meeting personto-person?
If we are headed for a more virtualized communication, we need
to ask ourselves what we mean by authenticity. Not so long ago, word
processors and other office software were promoted using the slogan
"What you see is what you get." Nowadays, equally fitting
designations for distributed virtual environments (DVEs)--and even
video conference systems--would be "What you see is what I want you
to see" or, why not "What I see is what someone else wants me to
see."
Sketches look finished
Computer-generated images and animations tend to liquefy the normal
pragmatics of pictures. They tend to give misleading signals as to
the work and commitment invested in the picture, the purpose and
intention with the picture, and its origin. A preliminary sketch may
look as definitive and finished as the final version, giving the
viewer the feeling that proposals for changes are not welcome. Socalled photo-realism can mislead the recipient into thinking that
Virtual Communication 7
virtual objects, situations and developments represented really
exist (see, e.g. Ritchin, 1990). The situation is further
complicated when the pictures only have a very fragile, obscure, and
complex connection to human intentions, and hence lack origin,
author and sender, other than in a virtual sense.
Actions speak louder
To the extent that our behaviors and actions are observable, we
communicate through them our intentions, values and beliefs.
Sometimes we do this in a straightforward manner; sometimes we mask
ourselves. Increasingly, the primary intention of actions is to
communicate, and the reason is that information technology makes
actions easier, of less import, and also that actions are often
easily reversible. They require less effort and less involvement.
This kind of implicit communication has hardly been an issue with
older types of telecommunication, but given the fact that we now are
able to perform tele-actions, to experience tele-presence; to act
and behave in the world of information, implicit communication has
become a reality.
In this context, there are a number of interesting issues
regarding communicative behavior. First of all, implicit
communication may also be involuntary. That is, in a virtual world,
your actions may be observed without your knowledge or approval;
your actions may communicate even if that is not your intention.
Secondly, the fact that actions are also often reversible is
potentially misleading for two reasons. The first reason is that,
given that many actions of the actions you could possibly perform in
cyberspace are indeed reversible, and that most of them are also
light-weight (i.e. very easy to carry out) you may well find
Virtual Communication 8
yourself in situations where what you have done turns out, in fact,
to be irreversible. For instance, cases have already been reported
where people are issuing law-suits against web-based mail-order
companies after being "seduced" into buying excessive amounts of
products, simply because it was so easy.
The second reason why reversible actions in cyberspace are
potentially deceptive is that they allow for "virtual personas" to
be constructed. These expressions appear as solid as anything else
in the virtual world, yet they turn out to be highly ephemeral in
the sense that whatever work invested in them may be easily undone
with no detrimental consequences for their creator. As an
illustration, consider the case of the cross-dressing psychiatrist,
reported in Stone (1995) where a male psychiatrist took on a female
identity on a text-based chat-line and as such became very intimate
with a number of troubled women. When, in the end, the hoax was
discovered by the online community, several participants experienced
profound feelings of emotional violation and betrayal. The
psychiatrist, however, simply opened a new account and continued
participating in the community under a different name. In this
example, one might argue that with the undoing of his virtual
persona, the psychiatrist did in fact suffer some real-world
negative consequences in that he lost a considerable amount of
"social capital" (se, e.g., Ågren, 1998), most notably the trust of
his former female companions.
Mass behavior
Implicit communication also introduces the possibility of "going
with the flow" and other types off mass-behavior. What has
previously been impossible, become possible through new information
Virtual Communication 9
technology, in pace with people's actions becoming visible in
cyberspace. Just as "the market" dictates the rise and fall of stock
prices based on a million individuals' fears and hopes, decisions
are taken by virtual agents made up by the people listening to them.
In the "network nation" (Hiltz & Turoff, 1993) similar phenomena
will certainly crop up in a number of areas and on many different
levels. We may cast our individual votes by our ordinary actions in
a way that was not possible before. Such methods, like other that
build on more complex analyses of the actual and real-time behaviors
of people, must be seriously considered as alternatives and
complements to traditional economic and democratic processes.
The future of virtual communication
Virtual communication is communication in which some apparent
participant or part of the context is fictitious or deviates
substantially from the "real" interlocutor or context. The main
point here is that the conditions for communication are not what
they appear to be. Such phenomena are amplified by information
technology that lowers the cost of transforming and synthesizing
appearances in various modalities, and exposes us to information
that may have no well defined source but still appear to us as
expressions of some agent. If we continue down this path, we face a
rapid growth of virtual communication, and an increasing population
of virtual agents whose messages we will be forced to take
seriously. Today's technology and interfaces do not accurately
support the dialogue with virtual agents, but it is technically
possible to increase the interaction. Virtual communication could
have a major impact on society: Traditional democratic processes do
Virtual Communication 10
not stand a chance to cope with the accelerated pace with which
societal changes take place in cyberspace (Janlert, 1996; 1997).
One of the problems with virtual communication is that it
often is one-way: "The market seems nervous," but we have no way of
asking why, or what would happen if… Present technology gives poor
support to get into a dialogue with implicit and collective virtual
agents, but we might be able to improve the situation; making
communication more complete. In order to do this, we need to resolve
questions such as when and how this is possible. Virtual
communication raises many important issues about trust, identity,
authenticity, etc. One question is how to combine the desire to look
the way you want with the desire to see what you want. If
communication becomes a meeting of interfaces, rather than a meeting
person-to-person we need to develop a new set of social contracts,
and devise mechanisms to implement them.
I am by no means the first to pose these kinds of questions.
They are issues that engage the interest of a variety of scientific
disciplines and that are debated in many different forums. This
paper, however, tries to contribute by approaching them from a
distinctively technical perspective, in recognition of the social
responsibility that must be shouldered by computing professionals-—
the engineers of the information society. The work presented here is
based on the conviction that computer scientists have a unique
vantage point when it comes to tracing the consequences of seemingly
insignificant design choices and accounting for their potentially
far-reaching effects on nearly every aspect of our future lives. My
hope is that, ultimately, the results of this project can be applied
Virtual Communication 11
in the design of future computer-supported information and
communication artifacts.
Communication studies in the age of virtuality
Virtual communication as a research area might provisionally be
defined as follows (Bengtsson, 1997).
The study of virtual communication is the study of
information, communication, and action, mediated by new
information technologies, where content, intentions, or actors
may be nonexistent, distorted in some way, replaced, or even
created--intentionally or unintentionally.
Characteristics conducive to virtual communication
The above definition requires the mediation of modern information
technologies. This is based on the assumption that such technologies
have a number of features that are crucial to making virtual
communication possible. These are, most notably, the digitization of
information, the possibilities for interactivity, and the networking
of different information sources and receivers. The most prominent
of recent communication technologies are the Internet and the
protocol underlying the World Wide Web. These make up the basic
building blocks for the creation of cyberspace—-a shared virtual
reality. Two things that set the Internet apart from earlier
communication technologies are the architectural differences and the
digitization of information, as has also been pointed out by
Newhagen & Rafaeli (1996). What is important, and crucial to the
notion of virtual communication, is that neither of these features
is manifestly apparent or obvious to the user.
The Internet also stretches the concept of synchronicity:
Where before, different interpersonal communication modes could be
Virtual Communication 12
categorized as either synchronous (e.g., face-to-face, telephone
conversation) or asynchronous (e.g., mail correspondence) in a
relatively straightforward way, communication modes such as Internet
relay chat (IRC)-—where users may take time to edit and revise
outgoing messages but where there is still a sense of directness—seem to challenge such a dichotomy. Henderson (1995) points to the
increasing control of the communication process by both producer and
audience member. A fundamental quality of this process, not
previously present in print or broadcast communications, is that the
medium itself monitors, stores, and reacts to the behavior of the
audience member.
The need for a new awareness
In the remarkably perspicacious book "Computers and social change,"
Perrolle (1987) remarks that "the exchange of computer images and
models is part of the process of negotiating the nature of external
reality—-and one which favors the image producer" (p. 13). What this
means is that, as computer networks are swarmed by digitized
pictures, simulations, etc., it gets ever harder for users to decide
what is real or true, and what is not. When there is no way of
discriminating between, e. g., a photograph of a living person and a
computer-generated picture of a completely fictitious character, the
definition of reality is very much up to the discretion of the
creator of that picture. Perrolle goes on to say "if information
comes in packages supplied by the system, the nature of external
reality cannot be negotiated by those using it" (ibid., p. 13). This
means that, not only do users encounter information whose validity
it is hard to judge, but that this judgment is further hampered by
Virtual Communication 13
the fact that there may be no way of telling where the information
came from.
Whenever a new medium emerged in the past, people largely
applied the judgment processes they already used. Initially, that
led to some gross mistakes, but as people became accustomed to the
new medium, they learned how to deal with its demands. An optimistic
approach to new media would simply be to wait for a continued
evolution and sophistication on the part of media audiences. A more
realistic stance is that digital media revolutionizes the world
around us on an unprecedented scale, and that to counter its
negative effects we have to increase our awareness of how program
design affects the social construction of reality. We also need to
harness the expressive powers of digital media, and equip ourselves
with equally powerful tools for consuming it in a mindful fashion.
In a wider perspective, the virtual communication position is
motivated by concerns about society at large, and the impacts of
modern information technology on such issues as the transformation
of democratic processes, the threats to personal integrity, and the
basic nature of future community. These and other considerations
have traditionally belonged to the domains of social scientists.
However, as society becomes ever more enmeshed in technology,
technologists tend to adopt the roles of social architects and
shoulder the responsibility of constructing our future society-regardless of whether they are aware of it or not. Increasingly, the
designs of engineers shape the world to a greater extent than do
those of politicians. Hence, even for computer scientists, societal
issues arise as at least as pertinent as do those of conventional
human-computer interaction design in the building of new artifacts.
Virtual Communication 14
Floridi (1995) argues that the Internet is in need of an
infrastructure of centers which, through coordinated efforts, would
guarantee the stability, reliability, and integrity of this "digital
encyclopedia." Although desirable, it seems highly unlikely that any
global efforts to impose structure to and monitor the quality of
this huge and dynamic space will prove feasible. We will probably
have to relinquish the grand ideals of Ted Nelson's Xanadu (see
Nelson, 1967; 1980) and instead focus on empowering users locally-at the interface--rather than trying to coordinate the construction
of a global, coherent database of every conceivable bit of
information. To this end, we need a new culture of selection, and
tools that can help users search for, filter, refine, and evaluate
what they are looking for. We need to devise efficient ways in which
users may select and retrieve information relevant to them, despite
the disorganized state of the Internet.
Implications for socio-psychological studies of CMC and CSCW
When functions previously involving personal contact are
computerized, social contact between people is replaced, in part, by
contact between humans and machines. It is also superseded by
various forms of computer-mediated encounters between humans, but
also between humans and automated entities. Social psychology has
traditionally concerned itself mainly with people and the
interactions between people. This is not to say that artifacts have
been considered unimportant to these interactions, or left
unattended by psychological research. For example, numerous studies
have been conducted to investigate the impact of advertising on
consumers; people's trust in mediated news broadcasts; and the
effect of televised campaigns on the outcome of political elections
Virtual Communication 15
(see, e.g., Pratkanis & Aronson, 1992). However, with the
introduction of computers and the ongoing permeation of digital,
interactive, and networked media into everyday life, social
psychology is faced with a new range of entities and phenomena that
need to be integrated into studies of interactions between
individuals and society.
Virtual information. New media offer the opportunity to convey
purely virtual information. Virtual objects and phenomena present
people with the challenge of determining the extent to which they
are to be treated as "real," for two reasons.
1. A virtual object or phenomenon may or may not have a realworld counterpart.
2. A virtual object representing a real-world object may do
this in an infinite number of ways, some of which effect a tight
coupling between the representation and what is represented, and
others where the connection between the two is blurred to various
degrees, to the point where it is almost severed. This further
complicates conceptions of what is real, or true, and what is not.
Virtual information. The impact of computer-supported
information and interaction technologies on communication studies
can be traced along three main lines.
1. The object of study needs to be redefined. Human beings are
no longer the only actors on the stage: Computers, as well as
people, tend to function more and more as social actors in their own
right.
2. The interfaces between individuals are being extended: As
mediators of communication between people, computers allow for a
much wider range of interpersonal interactions.
Virtual Communication 16
3. The range of phenomena is broadened: Interactions are no
longer restricted to physical networks, but can also take place in
electronic networks, accommodating a larger, more interconnected,
and more diverse set of "nodes" than ever before.
Four areas where the notion of virtual communication may
complement and inform traditional communication studies are, for
instance, the application of theories on person perception to the
design of computer agents; the study of how computer-generated
messages and objects are attributed to virtual agents; the effects
of VR experiences on the notion of "self"; and people’s attitudes
toward virtual and semi-virtual interaction partners.
Virtual actors. In the context of virtual communication, what
constitutes a conversational partner has to be thoroughly revised.
In discussions on computer-mediated communication (CMC), there has
so far been little debate concerning the objects of study:
Regardless of medium, in the end, communication boils down to
messages exchanged between two or more people. However, computerbased information and communication technologies yield, in effect,
an entirely new range of senders and receivers.
1. Using computer-supported tools, human interlocutors may
blend natural and artificial means of expression in generating and
interpreting messages.
2. As computers become more powerful and pervasive, more and
more communication is taking place between individual human beings
and the computers they handle, rather than between different
individuals. In some cases, the computer serves merely as a
repository for messages that are generated by a clearly identifiable
human sender (e.g., electronic bulletin boards). In other cases,
Virtual Communication 17
there may, in effect, be no such sender (e.g., automated email
responses).
3. Even when there is no confusion about who or what is the
source of messages received, current work in the field of humancomputer interaction is turning out autonomous agents and
intelligent interfaces--techniques based on a conversational
metaphor--that transforms the computer into a very tangible
communication partner.
Conclusions
There are definitely strong connections between human-computer
interaction (HCI) and communication research--and they will continue
to grow stronger as communication and information technology (CIT)
proceeds to take the place of traditional production industry in
modern society (see, e.g., Janlert, 1995). It is the premise of this
paper that, very soon, almost every object around us will be an
information processing entity--and one with which we will be able to
communicate. However, it is only lately that much of this common
ground has begun to be unveiled and exploited. Still, there is an
unrealized potential for cross-fertilization between the two
disciplines. It is an exciting time.
A review of current literature (Bengtsson, 1997) reveals how
several areas of research (such as media studies, linguistics,
cognitive and social psychology, political science) relate to and
can be extended to concern issues in virtual communication. It is
evident that several research fields can indeed inform the current
investigation. Common areas of interest include:
1. How different media influence people's perceptions of
reality, and of the veracity of the information they encounter.
Virtual Communication 18
2. How cyberspace and VR will transform the concept of society
and citizenship.
3. How the appearance of apparently intentional artifacts will
affect people's interactions with their environment, and with each
other.
4. How notions of identity and self adapt when people begin
interacting as abstract information entities, and when the means for
self-presentation are extended.
5. How people will search, retrieve, process, and relate to
information in a rapidly changing and expanding media universe.
Concerns specific to the virtual communication perspective seem to
be the causal relations between software design decisions and those
very same questions.
This review leads to some general conclusions. First, virtual
communication is obviously an area that overlaps or touches on a
number of different disciplines and research areas. Second, it is
also a new approach that puts an integrative perspective on objects
of study and conceptual frameworks and theories normally not
connected with each other.
Third, it is evident how difficult it is to go beyond the
borders of well established research areas, both to integrate other
perspectives and to cover new developments arising from technical
changes. Existing disciplines and areas of research are constrained
by their historical context when confronted with technology changes.
A good illustration is given by CMC studies, which were established
at a time when text-based electronic mail and electronic
conferencing were prevailing, and which now are experiencing
difficulties to adjust concepts and theories to the pictorial and
Virtual Communication 19
hypermedial forms of communication that are currently in the focus
of interest.
Fourth, and perhaps the most important conclusion, is the
under-standing that significant portions of computer interface
design work falls into the general category of communication message
design, as has also been pointed out by Biocca (1992). This suggests
that any research on new media and virtual reality (VR) must
eventually consider the relationship between communication design
and cognition.
The case of hyperpersonal communication
This section gives an example of how the virtual communication
approach may inform and offer new perspectives on the study of CMC
by discussing and extending Walther's (1996) concept of
"hyperpersonal" communication.
A fully integrated view of computer-mediated communication
takes into account the sender, receiver, channel, and feedback as
each contributes to interaction. At the level of the sender,
computer-mediated communication partners may select and express
communication behaviors that are more stereotypically desirable in
achieving their social goals and transmit messages free of the noise
that otherwise comes with unintended appearance or behavior
features. At the other end, the receiver takes in these stylized
messages, construct idealized images of the partner and the
relationship, and--through reciprocation--confirms them.
Combinations of media attributes, social phenomena, and
social-psychological processes may lead to computer-mediated
communication becoming what Walther (1996) has dubbed
"hyperpersonal," that is, actually exceeding face-to-face
Virtual Communication 20
communication in certain interpersonal aspects. According to
Walther, mediated interaction may become hyperpersonal when users
experience commonality and are self-aware, physically separated, and
communicating via a limited-cues channel that allows them to
selectively self-present and edit; to construct and reciprocate
representations of their partners and relationships without the
interference of environmental reality. Effects may be further
amplified when communication is asynchronous and when the computermediated communication link is the only link there is.
There is more to hyperpersonal communication
Walther's definition of hyperpersonal communication focuses on the
possibility for conversational partners to manage a more pleasant
appearance than in face-to-face conversations. Specifically, the
phenomena Walther describes do not merely serve to overcome a
limited-cues situation; they require such a situation. In a similar
vein, when the equivalent of interpersonal communication seems to
emerge in text-based environments, it is "emulated" through paralinguistic signs. However, consider the movement from text-based
environments to multimedia conference systems, and ultimately, to VR
applications: "True" face-to-face communication may soon be
accomplished. Modern video-conferencing systems have the
capabilities to convey both sound and images in real time, and thus
allow for the transmission of gestures, tone of voice, etc. One
might think of a person-to-person meeting using such a system as a
"real" meeting, where the participants happen to be located on
either side of a window.
Now, using VR techniques, it is quite possible to retain the
codes of interpersonal communication, but there is also the
Virtual Communication 21
potential for adding quite a few codes, e.g., for signaling mood and
meaning (cf. Lanier & Biocca, 1992). Such possibilities seem even
more deserving of the term hyperpersonal communication. Given a very
high-bandwidth digital communication link, capable of conveying
flawlessly the visual and auditory elements (and perhaps also
others) of a face-to-face encounter, interactants may begin
experimenting with superimposing such "special effects" on top of
the normal dialogue to amplify their expressions. But it would also
be possible to increase control of the design of one's appearance
and behavior by modifying the normal channels, e.g., body language.
This would afford people to visually express what they really want
to express (which, for a "stiff" person, might be something less
stiff and controlled and instead something more lively).
Distinctions
To clarify this discussion, I would like to make two distinctions.
First, in this context, there are two different scales for measuring
qualitative differences in mediated communication. One scale assumes
that mediated communication emulates communication face-to-face and,
in doing so, can be more or less successful. Success ranges from
"impersonal" through "near interpersonal" to what Walther calls
hyperpersonal. The other scale assumes that mediated communication
can, in fact, recreate the meeting face-to-face, in all relevant
aspects. On this scale, "impersonal" corresponds to "incomplete,"
"interpersonal" becomes "normal," and "hyperpersonal" takes on a new
meaning. This brings us to the second distinction.
Assuming that, using VR techniques, we can re-create a
physical meeting between two people--participants can see, hear, and
perhaps even touch and smell, each other--which possibilities exist
Virtual Communication 22
for rendering this meeting hyperpersonal, adding dimensions that
have no counterpart in real life? Well, as I see it, there are two
possibilities, both of which will probably be explored. First, by
"hyperpersonal" we could refer to a meeting that allows participants
to experience a more "complete" meeting than is possible in real
life. Participants may be able to reveal more of their true inner
self; to partake in a "meeting of souls." For example, one could
imagine people using colors or sounds to convey feelings to each
other. Second, "hyper" could also imply the addition of things that
are not real; masks, or varnish on top of the ordinary. This
augmented reality could, but does not necessarily, imply deception.
As an illustration, imagine this: As Donna sits down in front of her
video-conferencing system, she freezes for a moment, letting a
camera locate and fix her eyes. She then instructs a computer to
continuously monitor the input from the camera, and to perform some
slight alterations to each frame, before giving the result as
output. Having done this, Donna calls up her boyfriend. During
conversation, her boyfriend compliments her on her radiant eyes.
Little does he now that Donna uses real-time thickening of her
eyelashes...
Insert Figure 2 here
Figure 2 illustrates the assumption that, as mediation
technologies grow more advanced, what could be called "the
conversational gap" closes, i. e., the differences between
interpersonal and mediated communication diminish. At the same time,
these technologies will allow conversational partners to add new
dimensions to their interaction. These dimensions may serve to
Virtual Communication 23
enhance aspects of normal meetings, or they may serve as "special
effects"; augmentations that are purely artificial.
An interesting question is whether inflating certain phenomena
already present in ordinary face-to-face encounters serves to
produce something that could be considered "more real" or if the
resultant interaction is more properly described as "hyper-real."
Dramatic characters are sometimes said to be "larger than life,"
their essential features augmented and distilled into a distinctive
role. And, although great dramas can surely tell us true things
about real life, are they really true to life?
Conclusions
Research into interaction with--and by means of--computers should
focus on acquiring knowledge that can guide the design of interfaces
that provide users with means appropriate for realistically judging
the competence of their conversational partners. For instance, we
should explore how representational realism in human-like computer
agents can be matched with subjective and objective measures of
competence. Such research would do well to draw upon findings from
social psychology concerning person perception, especially overattribution and social categorization. Even more important than the
ease with which humans and computerized agents may cooperate is the
issue of reliability. There are times when cooperation could prove
just too "smooth"; where the humanness of a computer partner leads a
human to infer qualities that are non-existent, or highly
exaggerated, and invest too much trust and expectation in the
computer.
Computers often seem to be "unintelligent" in different ways
than do humans. Even backed by artificial intelligence, computers
Virtual Communication 24
tend to show their greatest weaknesses in precisely those domains
where people excel, and vice versa. To some degree, one could
suspect common ground taken for granted to be the source of
(potentially disastrous) misunderstandings in human–computer
interactions. From a virtual communication perspective, however, one
might also speculate about how this discussion carries over into
other conditions as CMC blurs the boundaries between interpersonal
and mediated conversations. Whether a perceived interlocutor is, in
fact, human or computerized (or both) becomes harder to determine as
human and computerized agents converge at the concept of virtual
agents.
An important research goal is to investigate the interface's
impact on users' ability to negotiate claims of external validity in
conversation with virtual agents. Knowledge gained from such
research will be important in guiding the design of digital
communication services, search engines, information filtering
devices, video-conference systems, decision-support systems, etc.
How does one go about establishing "natural" methods for probing the
interaction partner's status; its degree--and nature--of
understanding? This makes an interesting challenge to interface
designers, and one of growing importance.
Conclusion
Virtual communication is not restricted to computer-supported
communications. It can occur in any kind of medium--face-to-face
meetings, telephone conversations, radio and television broadcasts,
newspapers, video conferences, electronic mail exchanges, web
interactions, VR environments, etc. It can also occur in any
modality--texts, sounds, voices, images (still or moving),
Virtual Communication 25
animations, etc. Virtual communication is virtual, and virtuality
works by impressions. Virtuality depends on appearances, rather than
facts and conscious interpretations. What is important is not the
mode of communication in itself, but rather that the conditions for
communication are not what they appear to be. However, modern
information technology may be conducive in giving rise to situations
where those conditions are difficult or impossible to appraise.
Fallacious?
Fabrications, lies, and fiction are not necessarily examples of
virtual communication. First, because they need not have a virtual
quality. Second, because they do not necessarily affect the
conditions of communication. To claim that the weather was splendid
during a vacation (conference) on Hawaii when, in fact, the rain
poured down constantly, is just a straightforward, non-virtual, lie.
However, returning to work rubbed in tanning lotion (or after
repeated visits to a solarium) would be virtually communicating a
message to that effect. It would also constitute deception although
it would not be a lie. Convincing a visiting lecturer that I am a
native of Hawaii will directly affect the conditions of our
communication. On the other hand, merely maintaining that Maui is
the largest of the Hawaiian islands will have no such effects
(though it may have some indirect effects, depending on the
lecturer's knowledge of Hawaii).
Again, the medium used is of little consequence. A TV news
reporter apparently talking against the background of a city under
heavy artillery fire may give a very convincing impression of being
at the scene himself, when in fact he is standing in a studio
thousands of kilometers away. Perhaps a less obvious case of virtual
Virtual Communication 26
communication arises when news anchor displays a close-up of Venus
with height differences exaggerated a hundred times—and does not
comment on this. Most viewers will get the wrong impression of the
Venusian landscape, even though the news show has not really
presented any inaccurate information. It all depends on what the
expectations are. As long as it is part of the apparent context of
news programs that manipulated or fabricated pictures will not be
shown without explicit cautioning or warning--when in fact such a
policy is not in effect--virtual communication might be said to
result.
Immoral?
Virtual communication is not inherently "bad” or "immoral." If we
consider it legitimate at all to try to make a good impression, the
vastly improved possibilities to design our appearance to our own
liking does not change anything in principle, but the new tools for
self-design certainly reminds us of the extent to which we are
cultural products. The effort we put into to (re)forming human
beings is impressive. Virtual communication does not require the
intent to deceive. Moreover, successful deception is not generally
required to achieve the desired effect. Politeness, for instance, is
generally appreciated even if there are serious doubts as to its
sincerity. The appearance has become a "real" and accepted part of a
person even as appearances are known not to match the "real" person-the meaning of which simultaneously becomes obscure.
We also have to consider the effects on the self of a selfimposed explicitly designed appearance. If I wish to appear as a
trustworthy person, for instance, the designed appearance will also
create an external pressure on me to behave like one, in order to
Virtual Communication 27
keep up the image. Designed appearances may slowly change reality,
and that may be an important motive to engage in such activities-the designed appearance serving as an externalized, idealized selfimage (Janlert, 1995).
Designed?
Virtual communication can occur spontaneously, without design. A
good example is the case of emerging collective virtual agents. We
may view virtual agents as a rather natural way of dealing
cognitively with complex situations. Consider, for example, how
children anthropomorphize, and how people have tried to comprehend
natural events as the acts of gods. An important difference that
sets the first example apart from the latter two is that technology
is effective in shaping the events, opening up possibilities for
designing agents on purpose, with properties to match the creator’s
values and goals. This is also one of the main motivations for
considering virtual communication on a technical basis.
Conscious?
Virtual communication is a dynamic category, since how things appear
is partly in the eye of the beholder. One may wonder about the role
played by awareness or lack of awareness of a discrepancy between
the apparent and the real conditions. Awareness does not--in itself-make the communication real, because we are not free to compensate
completely for the impression created by the virtual conditions (as
illustrated, e.g., by the studies of computers as social actors).
Also, virtuality in itself does not go away just because we know
something is not real: We do not mistake a simulation for the real
thing, and yet that simulation gives us virtual knowledge of the
Virtual Communication 28
process it mimics--it may even teach us things we could not have
learned by observing it in the real world.
Transient?
It is tempting to infer that some of these phenomena are of a
temporary nature. For instance, once people in general become fully
aware of the possibilities of manipulating and synthesizing photorealistic images, they might develop a new skepticism towards
pictures (and Hollywood movies) that would counteract some of the
potentially negative effects of virtual communication. Generally, if
the conditions of communication are not what they seem to be, as
time passes, we may come to learn to interpret impressions
differently than before, adapting our perception. Nevertheless, the
distinction between appearances and reality itself remains tenable
only so long as it makes a difference: If people no longer care
whether they are talking to a human or to a computer, then--we must
assume--their idea of humans and/or computers have changed.
Ultimately, our conception of what constitutes reality may change.
There are many tendencies today--like the increasing value of
"credibility" as compared to "truth" and "truthfulness" in the
assessment of leading persons in politics, administration and
industry--indicating a general drift from the real to the virtual.
And the transactions going on in the virtual world; in information
space; in media space, will certainly continue to grow in
importance.
Is virtual communication a passing phenomenon; a side effect
of the transition from older types of information technology to the
new computerized, networked, mobile information technology? Or will
it remain when we eventually have adjusted to the change? It is too
Virtual Communication 29
early to say. It is my belief, however, that a strong case can be
made for the long-term continued relevance of virtual communication.
Virtual Communication 30
References
Bengtsson, B. (1997). Virtual communication: A survey (Report
UMINF 97.20). Umeå University, Department of Computing Science.
Bengtsson, B., Burgoon, J. K., Cederberg, C., Bonito, J., &
Lundeberg, M. (1999). The impact of anthropomorphic interfaces on
influence, understanding, and credibility. Proceedings of the 32nd
Hawaii International Conference on Computer and Systems Sciences,
Maui, HI, January 1999.
Biocca, F. (1992). Communication within virtual reality:
Creating a space for research, Journal of Communication, 42(4), 522.
Floridi, L. (1995). Internet: Which future for organized
knowledge, Frankenstein or Pygmalion? International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 43, 261-274.
Henderson, C. (1995). The psychology of the new media, Educom
Review, 30, 48-55.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human
communication via computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Janlert, L-E (1995). Hemma i cyberspace [At home in
cyberspace]. Stockholm: Scandinavian University Press.
Janlert, L-E (1996). Demokratisk informationsteknik
[Democratic information technology]. Paper presented at the seminar
Teknik, demokrati och delaktighet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Janlert, L-E. (1997). Issues in virtual communication. (Report
UMINF 97.27). Umeå University, Department of Computing Science.
Lanier, J., & Biocca, F. (1992). An insider's view of the
future of virtual reality. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 150-172.
Virtual Communication 31
Lieberman, H. (1997). Autonomous interface agents. Proceedings
of CHI '97, 67-74.
Maes, P. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information
overload. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 31-40.
Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be
teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669678.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are
social actors. Proceedings of CHI '94, 72-78.
Nelson, T. H. (1967). Getting it out of our system. In G.
Schechter (Ed.), Information retrieval: A critical review.
Washington, DC: Thompson Books.
Nelson, T. H. (1980). Replacing the printed word: A complete
literary system. IFIP Proceedings, 1013-1023.
Newhagen, J., & Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why communication
researchers should study the internet: A dialogue. Journal of
Communication, 46(1), 4-13.
Perrolle, J. (1987). Computer-mediated conversation. In J.
Perrolle (Ed.), Computers and social change: Information, property,
and power. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E. (1992). The age of propaganda:
The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: Freeman.
Ritchin, F. (1990). In our own image. New York: Aperture.
Stone, A. R. (1995). The war of desire and technology at the
close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication:
Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction.
Communication research, 23, 3-43.
Virtual Communication 32
Ågren, P-O. (1998). Att förstå virtualisering [Understanding
virtualization]. Unpublished licentiate thesis, Umeå University,
Department of Informatics, Umeå, Sweden.
Virtual Communication 33
Figures
?
Virtual Agent
Pheno menon / pression
E
x
Obser er v
Figure 1. Virtual agents as backward projections
More Real?
Mask
Incomplete
Recreated
Face-to-Face
Hyperpersonal
Figure 2. Hyperpersonal communication