It’s something about being on videoconference all day that is overwhelming. Of course, the world calls it “Zoom Fatigue”.
I came across this interesting article by Jeremy N. Bailenson – and his piece “Nonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom Fatigue” (Technology, Mind, and Behavior, February 24, 2021, Volume 2, Issue 1) is worth reading.
He pointed out four possible explanations for Zoom Fatigue: Excessive amounts of close-up eye gaze; cognitive load; increased self-evaluation from staring at video of oneself; and constraints on physical mobility.
[Note that although Bailenson said all are based on academic research – we should consider these claims to be arguments, not yet scientific findings].
All his four explanations do make sense. And they can make Zoom meetings pretty pressuring.
Close-up Eye Gaze: Bailenson gave the example of being in an elevator. The vertical transport contraption keeps people boxed-in. And people are forced to violate a nonverbal norm – they must stand very close to strangers. This exceeds the typical amounts of intimacy people tend to display with strangers and causes discomfort. As a result, people in an elevator tend to look away from the faces of others by looking down or otherwise averting their gaze in order to minimize eye contact with others.
Bailenson’s assertion: “People decrease one cue to compensate for a context-driven increase in another”.
On Zoom, behavior ordinarily reserved for close relationships – such as long stretches of direct eye gaze and faces seen close up – has suddenly become the way we interact with casual acquaintances, coworkers, and even strangers. It is daunting.
The size of faces on the screen, and the amount of time the viewer is seeing the front-on view of another person’s face which simulates eye contact can make this an intimidating Zoom experience.
Cognitive Load: In face-to-face interaction, nonverbal communication flows naturally, to the point where we are rarely consciously attending to our own gestures and other nonverbal cues.
On Zoom, nonverbal behavior is even more complex – and users need to work harder to send and receive signals. On Zoom, one source of load relates to sending extra cues.
Users are forced to consciously monitor nonverbal behavior and to send cues to others that are intentionally generated. E.g. Centering oneself in the camera’s field of view, nodding in an exaggerated way for a few extra seconds to signal agreement, or looking directly into the camera (as opposed to the faces on the screen) to try and make direct eye contact when speaking.
This constant monitoring of behavior adds up. Even the way we vocalize on video takes effort. compared face-to-face interaction to videoconferences and it is said that demonstrated people speak 15% louder when interacting on video.
Moreover, in Zoom, receivers are provided fewer cues than they typically get in face-to-face conversations. Most people focus their cameras toward their heads; indeed one of the more celebrated aspects of Zoom meetings is freedom from worrying about how one is dressed below the waist.
But as a result, the influences of facial expressions, eye gaze, and size of the heads within a screen are likely magnified on Zoom, compared to face-to-face meetings in which also provide cues about body size and height, leg movements, posture, and other cues.
In general, when there are fewer communication cues presented, those particular cues have a larger impact than when there are many cues available.
Increased Self-evaluation: An all-day mirror. Imagine in the physical workplace, for the entirety of an 8-hour workday, an assistant followed you around with a handheld mirror, and for every single task you did and every conversation you had, they made sure you could see your own face in that mirror.
This may sound ridiculous, but this is what happens on Zoom calls. Even though one can change the settings to “hide self view,” the default is that we see our own real-time camera feed, and we stare at ourselves throughout hours of meetings per day.
The effect of seeing oneself in a mirror has been studied for decades, starting with the pioneering work of Duval and Wicklund (1972) demonstrating that people are more likely to evaluate themselves when seeing a mirror image. While this can lead to more pro-social behavior, the self-evaluation can be stressful.
Bailenson believes that this “mirror” effect on Zoom causes self-evaluation and negative affect.
Reduced Mobility: Cameras have a field of view, an area they can see. Close up to the camera, the field of view is small, while farther away from the camera the area is larger. This conical shape where the camera sees is called a frustrum.
On a Zoom call, people need to stay within the frustrum in order to be seen by others. Moreover, because many Zoom calls are done via computer, people tend to stay close enough to reach the keyboard, which typically means their faces are between a half-meter and a meter away from the camera (assuming the camera is embedded in the laptop or on top of the monitor).
Even in situations where one is not tied to the keyboard, the cultural norms are to stay centered within the camera’s view frustrum and to keep one’s face large enough for others to see. In essence users are stuck in a very small physical cone, and most of the time this equates to sitting down and staring straight ahead.
During face-to-face meetings people move. They pace, stand up, and stretch, doodle on a notepad, get up to use a chalkboard, even walk over to the water cooler to refill their glass.
There are a number of studies showing that locomotion and other movements cause better performance in meetings. E.g. People who are walking, even when it is indoors, come up with more creative ideas than people who are sitting (Oppezzo & Schwartz, 2014). Meaning, when we are in a situation of being forced to sit in view of the camera, it tampers down movement.
Notwithstanding the above, it is an indisputable fact that Zoom has been a blessing. Indeed, it is a robust communication tool that is much depended on during Covid-19 and certainly, it has benefited all of us immensely.
I do not deny that the success of this medium, like many technologies, revolves around its ability to seamlessly parrot face-to-face conversations.
Regardless of my personal preference for face-to-face meetings, videoconferencing is here to stay. I have no doubt about its usefulness – we just need to build better interfaces in order to develop better use practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment