Advertisement

Effectiveness of Visual Non-verbal Information on Feeling and Degree of Transmission in Face-to-Face Communication

  • Masashi OkuboEmail author
  • Akeo Terada
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10904)

Abstract

Recently, the importance of non-verbal information is getting attention. Generally, it is believed that the more non-verbal information is exchanged, the better partner’s message can be understood. In this field, much research on effectiveness of non-verbal information in communication is performed. However, among these presents doubts about this effect. Prof. Sugiya investigated quality of information’s transmission from two points of view; degree of transmission and feeling of transmission, and she suggests that non-verbal information sometimes does not help us to understand partner’s message. We try to verify effectiveness of non-verbal information and types of communication on feeling or degree of transmission from these views. For this purpose, two experiments were conducted. The experimental results of the three communication modes—text chat, voice chat, and face-to-face communication—showed that the degree of transmission was lowest in face-to-face communication as evaluated with the listeners’ test accuracy rates and consistency of character impressions. Conversely, according to the questionnaire results, feeling of transmission was ranked highest for face-to-face communication, followed by voice chat, and lastly text chat. These results suggested that the communicability of information should be considered using feeling of transmission and degree of transmission as two separate factors.

Keywords

Non-verbal information Human communication Communication chanel 

References

  1. 1.
    Kurokawa, T: Non-verbal Interface. Ohm press, Monroe (1994). (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birdwhistell, R.L.: Kinesics and Context. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia (1970)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mehrabian, A.: Communication without words. Psychol. Today 2(4), 52–55 (1968)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kimura, Y., Tsuzuki, T.: Group decision making and communication mode. Jpn. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38(2), 183–192 (1998). (in Japanese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sugitani, Y.: Opinion book about the difference of the information transmission in Internet communication and the face-to-face communication (in Japanese). https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/it2/kaikaku/dai3/siryou3_2_2.pdf
  6. 6.
    Shibuya, K., Fukuzumi, S., Sakamoto, A.: Comparison subjective self-disclosure by CMC with by FTF– Survey study and laboratory experiment. In: Human Interface Symposium 2016, pp. 601-609 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldstein, A.P., Sprafkin, R.P., Gershaw, N.J., Klein, P.: The adolescent: social skill training through structured learning. In: Carledge, G., Milburn, J.F. (eds.), Teaching Social Skills to Children. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kikuchi, A.: Notes on the Researches Using KiSS-18. Bull. Fac. Soc. Welf. Iwate Prefect. Univ. 6(2), 41–51 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Doshisha UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations