Conferencing together in social virtual reality: Bringing agency back into affordances-based approaches in communication scholarship

References

• Ahn, S. J., L. Levy, A. Eden, A. S. Won, B. MacIntyre, and K. Johnsen. 2021. IEEEVR2020: Exploring the first steps toward standalone virtual conferences. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2:1–15. doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.648575.
   Google Scholar
• Bazarova, N. N., and J. B. Walther. 2009. Attributions in virtual groups: Distances and behavioral variations in computer-mediated discussions. Small Group Research 40 (2):138–62. doi:10.1177/1046496408328490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benford, S., J. Bowers, L. E. Fahlén, C. Greenhalgh, and D. Snowdon. 1995. User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 242–249. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/223904.223935.
   Google Scholar
• Benford, S., C. Greenhalgh, and D. Lloyd. 1997. Crowded collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing, 59–66. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/258549.258588.
   Google Scholar
• Biocca, F. 2006. The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (2):JCMC324. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.x.
   Google Scholar
• Biocca, F., C. Harms, and J. K. Burgoon. 2003. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 12 (5):456–80. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumler, J. G. 2016. The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research 6 (1):9–36. doi:10.1177/009365027900600102.
   Google Scholar
• Boothby, E. J., M. S. Clark, and J. A. Bargh. 2014. Shared experiences are amplified. Psychological Science 25 (12):2209–16. doi:10.1177/0956797614551162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowers, J., J. Pycock, and J. O’Brien. 1996. Talk and embodiment in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing, 58–65. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/238386.238404.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A., E. Hodge, E. Kisling, and S. Collins. 2009. The virtual worlds in education conference: Lessons learned from conducting an international, peer-reviewed conference within Second Life. Educational Technology 49 (3):33–6.
   Google Scholar
• Bub, D. N., M. E. J. Masson, and R. Kumar. 2018. Time course of motor affordances evoked by pictured objects and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 44 (1):53–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., J. A. Bonito, A. Ramirez, N. E. Dunbar, K. Kam, and J. Fischer. 2002. Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication 52 (3):657–77. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02567.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., and S. B. Jones. 1976. Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research 2 (2):131–46. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00706.x.
   Google Scholar
• Chong, I., and R. W. Proctor. 2020. On the evolution of a radical concept: Affordances according to Gibson and their subsequent use and development. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 15 (1):117–32. doi:10.1177/1745691619868207.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Churchill, E. F., and D. Snowdon. 1998. Collaborative virtual environments: An introductory review of issues and systems. Virtual Reality 3:3–15.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., and S. E. Brennan. 2004. Grounding in communication. In Perspectives on socially shared cognition, eds. L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley, 127–49. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin, J. M., and A. Strauss. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13 (1):3–21. doi:10.1007/BF00988593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, R. T. 1999. Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory 9 (2):119–61. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J. L. 2020. How artifacts afford: The power and politics of everyday things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. L., and J. B. Chouinard. 2016. Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36 (4):241–8. doi:10.1177/0270467617714944.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, T., N. S. Shami, W. A. Kellogg, and D. W. Levine. 2011. Synchronous interaction among hundreds: An evaluation of a conference in an avatar-based virtual environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing, 503–12. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, S. K., K. E. Pearce, J. Vitak, and J. W. Treem. 2017. Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22 (1):35–52. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdous, S. M. S., I. M. Arafat, and J. Quarles. 2016. Visual feedback to improve the accessibility of head-mounted displays for persons with balance impairments. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI 2016), 121–8. New York: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, J., S. J. Janssen, J. H. Yeykelis, L. Segovia, K. Y. Bailenson, and J. N. (Grace) Ahn. 2015. Avatars versus agents: A meta-analysis quantifying the effect of agency on social influence. Human-Computer Interaction 30 (5):401–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, J., and B. McEwan. 2017. Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs 84 (3):298–318. doi:10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaver, W. W. 1991. Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 79–84. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, L., N. A. Lewis, K. Sender, and A. S. Won. 2021. Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of Communication 71 (5):855–74. doi:10.1093/joc/jqab026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. 2001. Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35 (2):441–56. doi:10.1177/S0038038501000219.
   Google Scholar
• Jeong, S. H., and M. Fishbein. 2007. Predictors of multitasking with media: Media factors and audience factors. Media Psychology 10 (3):364–84. doi:10.1080/15213260701532948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V., and B. A. Nardi. 2006. Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch, S. 2003. Mood adjustment via mass communication. Journal of Communication 53 (2):233–50. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02588.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le, D. A., B. MacIntyre, and J. Outlaw. 2020. Enhancing the experience of virtual conferences in social virtual Environments. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), 485–494. New York: IEEE. doi:10.1109/VRW50115.2020.00101.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J., M. Kim, and J. Kim. 2019. RoleVR: Multi-experience in immersive virtual reality between co-located HMD and non-HMD users. Multimedia Tools and Applications 79 (1-2):979–1005. doi:10.1007/s11042-019-08220-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livingstone, S. 2000. Television and the active audience. In Formations: A 21st century media studies textbook, ed. D. Fleming, 175–95. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lombard, M., and T. Ditton. 2006. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (2):JCMC321. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x.
   Google Scholar
• MacQueen, K. M., E. McLellan, K. Kay, and B. Milstein. 1998. Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Field Methods 10 (2):31–6.
   Google Scholar
• Mair, J., L. Lockstone-Binney, and P. A. Whitelaw. 2018. The motives and barriers of association conference attendance: Evidence from an Australasian tourism and hospitality academic conference. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 34:58–65. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maister, L., F. Cardini, G. Zamariola, A. Serino, and M. Tsakiris. 2015. Your place or mine: Shared sensory experiences elicit a remapping of peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia 70:455–61. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McVeigh-Schultz, J., A. Kolesnichenko, and K. Isbister. 2019. Shaping pro-social interaction in VR: An emerging design framework. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems, 1–12. New York: ACM
   Google Scholar
• Moustafa, F., and A. Steed. 2018. A longitudinal study of small group interaction in social virtual reality. In VRST ‘18: Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 1–10. Washington, DC: ACM. doi:10.1145/3281505.3281527.
   Google Scholar
• Nagy, P., and G. Neff. 2015. Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media and Society 1 (2):1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Nowak, K. L., J. Watt, and J. B. Walther. 2009. Computer mediated teamwork and the efficiency framework: Exploring the influence of synchrony and cues on media satisfaction and outcome success. Computers in Human Behavior 25 (5):1108–19. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh, C. S., J. N. Bailenson, and G. F. Welch. 2018. A systematic review of social presence: Definition, antecedents, and implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5:114. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okabe-Miyamoto, K., E. Durnell, R. T. Howell, and M. Zizi. 2021. Did Zoom bomb? Negative video conferencing meetings during COVID-19 undermined worker subjective productivity. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 3 (5):1067–83. doi:10.1002/hbe2.317.
   Google Scholar
• Ouverson, K. M., and S. B. Gilbert. 2021. A composite framework of co-located asymmetric virtual reality. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1–20. Washington, DC: ACM. doi:10.1145/3449079.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6 (2):259–83. doi:10.1177/1461444804041444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, W. J. 2009. Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 30 (2):159–74. doi:10.1080/08838158609386617.
   Google Scholar
• Ramasubramanian, S., and O. O. Banjo. 2020. Critical media effects framework: Bridging critical cultural communication and media effects through power, intersectionality, context, and agency. Journal of Communication 70 (3):379–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice, R. E. 1993. Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research 19 (4):451–84. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00309.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzolatti, G., L. Fadiga, L. Fogassi, and V. Gallese. 1997. The space around us. Science (New York, N.Y.) 277 (5323):190–1. doi:10.1126/science.277.5323.190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, D., K. Waldow, F. Stetter, G. Bente, M. E. Latoschik, and A. Fuhrmann. 2016. SIAMC: A socially immersive avatar mediated communication platform. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 357–8. Washington, DC: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Segijn, C. M., H. A. M. Voorveld, L. Vandeberg, S. F. Pennekamp, and E. G. Smit. 2017. Insight into everyday media use with multiple screens. International Journal of Advertising 36 (5):779–97. doi:10.1080/02650487.2017.1348042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shami, N. S., T. Erickson, and W. A. Kellogg. 2011. Common ground and small group interaction in large virtual world gatherings. In ECSCW 2011: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, eds. S. Bødker, N. O. Bouvin, W. Lutters, V. Wulf, and L. Ciolfi, 393–404. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Slater, M., and S. Wilbur. 1997. A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6 (6):603–16. doi:10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa, B. J., and A. M. Clark. 2017. Getting the most out of academic conference attendance: Five key strategies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16 (1):160940691774044. doi:10.1177/1609406917740441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivasatava, S. D., and S. Chandra. 2018. Social presence in virtual world collaboration: An uncertainty reduction perspective using a mixed methods approach. MIS Quarterly 42 (3):779–803.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenglin, M. 2009. Binding: A resource for exploring interpersonal meaning in three-dimensional space. Social Semiotics 18 (4):425–47. doi:10.1080/10350330802469904.
   Google Scholar
• Steuer, J. 1992. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication 42 (4):73–93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, S. 2009. Digital divide: A discursive move away from the real inequities. The Information Society 25 (1):1–22. doi:10.1080/01972240802587539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trevino, L. K., R. H. Lengel, and R. L. Daft. 1987. Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Communication Research 14 (5):553–74. doi:10.1177/009365087014005006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijck, J. 2009. Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society 31 (1):41–58. doi:10.1177/0163443708098245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23 (1):3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Withagen, R., H. J. de Poel, D. Araújo, and G. J. Pepping. 2012. Affordances can invite behavior: Reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology 30 (2):250–8. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M. 2010. Don’t talk to me”: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society 12 (4):637–55. doi:10.1177/1461444809342775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zillmann, D. 2016. Mood management through communication choices. American Behavioral Scientist 31 (3):327–40. doi:10.1177/000276488031003005.
   Google Scholar