FMFADA Interpretive Master Plan Interpretive Solutions, Inc. West Chester, PA.
Solving’’ ambiguity in the virtual space: communication ... · allowing users to deploy their...
Transcript of Solving’’ ambiguity in the virtual space: communication ... · allowing users to deploy their...
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
‘‘Solving’’ ambiguity in the virtual space: communicationstrategies in a collaborative virtual environment
Paolo Cottone Æ Luca Pieti Æ Valentina Schiavinato ÆDorian Soru Æ Massimiliano Martinelli ÆDiego Varotto Æ Giuseppe Mantovani
Received: 31 October 2006 / Accepted: 24 August 2007 / Published online: 17 October 2007
� Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007
Abstract Collaborative virtual environments (CVE) face
the challenge of succeeding in incorporating critical
dimensions of cooperation and communication in everyday
working situations. One of these dimensions, situation
ambiguity, is scarcely considered in studies on CVE
although it can prove a key factor in future use of CVE in
real work situations. Many computer-supported coopera-
tive environments and telecommunication systems, like
those currently used in telemedicine, would benefit from
the incorporation of some degree of situation ambiguity
allowing users to deploy their diagnostic and interpretive
abilities. In the perspective adopted in this study, ambiguity
is the contingent outcome of the ongoing interaction taking
place between the environment and the interests of social
actors. The research focuses on the cooperation within
couples of participants facing situation ambiguity in a
virtual environment: a simulated city named Babylon.
Participants moved in the city through an avatar and
could communicate in one of the following conditions:
face-to-face, phone or chat. Their goal was that of meeting
somewhere in the city, in a place that they did not know
previously. Babylon contained elements designed to allow
both production and detection of ambiguity. Ambiguity
emerged when participants realized the presence of
inconsistencies in the way they perceived the situations
they had to face. The moments in which ambiguity was
perceived—called ‘‘critical events’’ (CE)—were mea-
sured and described through qualitative (ethnographically
oriented) methods. The different strategies that participants
used to ‘‘solve’’ ambiguity were characterized as: looking
for environmental cues, narrowing the focus of attention
and investing on cooperation. Both CEs and strategies were
analyzed with respect to the three communication condi-
tions: face-to-face, phone and chat. All the communication
conditions allowed the emergence of ambiguity and the
negotiation of strategies to solve ambiguity between part-
ners: according to literature, chat is very costly in terms of
time spent on writing but this disadvantage did not block
completely the emergence of ambiguity and the develop-
ment of adequate strategies of solution. All navigations but
three (on a total of 18 couples) succeeded: the partners did
meet in a short time (less than 15 min) relying on their
pragmatic resources in a new virtual place. Further research
is required to clarify the possible factors influencing the
choice of one strategy over the others, the order in which
strategies follow each other and the role of leadership in
ambiguity detection and solution.
Keywords Virtual reality � Cooperation � CMC �Negotiation � Ambiguity
1 Ambiguous situations and cooperation in a virtual
environment
1.1 Situated computing for collaborative workplaces
The challenge facing researchers on collaborative virtual
environments (CVE) is that of understanding ‘‘how to
design cooperative workplaces for meetings, collaboration
and communication that take into account technology,
physical spaces and the people that inhabit and work in
these spaces’’ (Bayon et al. 2006, p 194). Much work has
P. Cottone (&) � L. Pieti � V. Schiavinato � D. Soru �M. Martinelli � D. Varotto � G. Mantovani
Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, University of Padua,
Padua, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163
DOI 10.1007/s10111-007-0105-9
been done on this subject, from the seminal study of
Benford et al. (1994) to the synthesis book by Churchill
and Snowdon (1998). Recent research on CVE has
emphasized the importance of contexts of use as part of a
general movement towards ‘‘situated computing’’ (Mills
2001; Streitz et al. 2001). This trend is influenced by the
emergence in cognitive science of the ‘‘situated knowl-
edge’’ approach both in everyday (Clancey 1997; Clark
1997; Suchman 1987) and work situations (Engestrom and
Middleton 1996; Suchman 1996, 1997). Most of the limi-
tations that collaborative work has met in computer-
mediated environments depend on the fact that while
computer-mediated presentation of separate objects or
scenes may be simple, providing effective computer sup-
port to human interaction may prove difficult. Studies on
real life work settings (Goodwin and Goodwin 1996;
Suchman 1996) show that people use objects in the envi-
ronment not only to achieve their tasks but also to
coordinate their activities. Negotiation and co-reference are
processes largely responsible for this coordination: ‘‘many
activities within co-located working environments rely
upon the participants talking with each other, and moni-
toring each others’ conduct, whilst looking, both alone and
together, at some workplace artefact. An essential part of
this process is the individual’s ability to refer to particular
objects, and have another see in a particular way what they
themselves are looking at’’ (Hindmarsh et al. 2000).
1.2 Distributed knowledge, communication
and cooperation
Work is now better understood as an activity deeply
embedded in specific social and cultural contexts (Hutchins
1995; Hutchins and Palen 1997; Mantovani 1996b; Nardi
1996) rather than as a private achievement. In real work
situations people use knowledge distributed among humans
and artifacts (technologies) to achieve their goals and are
guided by a rich network of explicit and implicit cultural
norms which establish what has to be done and how it is to
be done (Bødker 1996). Work—and learning in general—is
considered as an activity normally happening within
‘‘communities of practices’’ (Wenger 1998). Knowledge
and expertise are embodied in practice and pass from one
person to another through highly structured and finely
tuned social networks. Communication and negotiation are
the basic instruments supporting working and learning as
social activities (it is notable that working and learning are
strictly intertwined in ‘‘communities of practices’’). From
this perspective, communication processes are critical to
achieve collaborative understanding of the changing and
ambiguous situations that people face in their everyday
activities.
1.3 Everyday situations: often unpredictable,
sometimes ambiguous
In everyday life people have to co-ordinate their actions and
intentions while facing situations which present often a cer-
tain degree of unpredictability and sometimes aspects of
ambiguity. Unpredictability is usually ascribed to change: the
passing of time brings to existence new and unexpected
aspects of situations, aspects that were sometimes hardly
visible in advance. Unpredictability is the result of a change
in the scenario bringing to the foreground aspects of the
situations that were not detected before. Ambiguity is dif-
ferent: it is the product not of novelty but of the fact that
actors can find situations not fully structured, confusing, and
somehow bewildering. Situation ambiguity as considered in
this study covers a broader space than the one covered by
ambiguity in Gaver et al. (2003). Gaver distinguishes three
classes of ambiguity according to the place in which uncer-
tainty is located along the relationship between person and
artefact: ambiguity of information, which finds its source in
the artefact itself; ambiguity of context, which is rooted in the
cultural frameworks used to interpret it; ambiguity of rela-
tionship, which appears in the evaluative stance of the social
actor. We consider situation ambiguity as a synthesis of the
three classes, since situation ambiguity stems from the fact
that situations are not objects out-there-in-the-world but
emerge as the contingent outcome of the ongoing interaction
between the environment (with its affordances; Gibson 1979)
and the social actors who move within them (with their
interests and goals; Clancey 1993). ‘‘The interaction is so
close that the actor-in-situation is defined precisely by the
way in which she exploits opportunities in the environment.
Conversely, the situation does not exist before the actor
enters, but is constructed by her intervention’’ (Mantovani
1996a, p 17). Because of its situated character (bound to the
ongoing actor–environment interaction) ambiguity presents a
strong challenge to communication and cooperation.
1.4 Pragmatic agreements to cope with ambiguous
situations
Cooperation among people in everyday work situations is
more a problem of pragmatic alignment than the result of
previous cognitive agreements (Goodwin 1994; Goodwin
and Goodwin 1996; Heath and Luff 1992, 1996; Hutchins
and Palen 1997). In real life the problem that people face
when they have to co-operate is that of building a common
ground on which to refer their mutual actions. This is why
communication intended to foster cooperation is focused on
making shared sense of current situations rather than on
transferring pure information. People try to find some
pragmatic agreement on the meaning of the situations they
152 Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163
123
face in order to start working together on a common project
(Wenger 1998). In everyday life pragmatic agreement is
achieved through a large array of communication devices
designed to clarify ambiguous situations: gestures (Hanks
1990; Hindmarsh et al. 2000), postures, and language as
social action (Duranti 1994, 1997). In virtual environments
ambiguity is difficult to produce, because of the constraints
of the presentation of the environmental characteristics in
the visual space: virtual environments are usually so strictly
structured and oversimplified that little space remains for
alternative constructions open to the different interests of
the social actors navigating them (Cottone and Mantovani
2003). In virtual environments the resources available to
participants to ‘‘solve’’ ambiguity by reaching pragmatic
alignment (gesture, posture and speech) are also reduced.
1.5 Strategies to ‘‘solve’’ ambiguity in a virtual
environment
The research had two purposes. The first one was that of
producing an environment sufficiently complex (both
structurally and functionally) and interactive to support not
only easy co-operation between two partners co-present
(through avatars) in the environment but also to allow the
emergence of ambiguous situations. This has been done by
building a virtual city, Babylon, whose characteristics are
described below. Couples of partners (see below for
description of participants) received the task to meet
somewhere in the city. Ambiguity was produced by the fact
that Babylon not only was an environment totally unknown
to participants but also contained elements designed to
deceive the partners (see below for description of Babylon).
The second purpose was that of examining the strategies
that partners built to face ambiguity. We expected that the
relational nature of ambiguity (Cottone and Mantovani
2003; Mantovani 1996b), stemming from the match of
environmental opportunities and the actors’ interests, would
be met basically in three ways: (a) addressing ambiguity as
a characteristic of the environment (see below, ‘‘Looking
for environmental cues’’); (b) addressing ambiguity as a
characteristic of the participant (‘‘Narrowing the focus of
attention’’); (c) considering ambiguity as a relational
product, born at the encounter between actors and their
environments; this approach to ambiguity considers the
other participant as a possible resource to solve the problem
(‘‘Investing on cooperation’’).
1.6 The effects of different communication conditions
A problem in developing usable CVE is that of providing
users with a consistent environment for communication. In
the virtual space, participants normally have limited access
to their mutual position, orientation and operations; this is
why talk plays an even more critical role in CVE than when
compared to everyday situations: in CVE ‘‘almost all actions
must be revealed through talk’’ (Hindmarsh et al. 2000, p
493). To investigate these effects we allowed participants,
while moving in the city through an avatar, to communicate
in one of the following conditions: face-to-face (F: using
verbal and non verbal communication), phone (P: using a
normal telephone line) or chat (C: using an electronic text
message system). Our first hypothesis, according to past
research (Koleva et al. 2000; Kuzouka et al. 2004; Kirk et al.
2005), was that talk would support smooth interaction in all
the three conditions, with the obvious limitation of a wider
time span spent in the chat condition due to the fact that
writing is usually an activity more time-consuming than
talking. Our second hypothesis was that both voice condi-
tions would support mutual interaction with equal efficacy
(we assumed that the ease of talk exchanges supported by
each condition would be responsible for the expected dif-
ferences in performance and in strategic cooperation
between participants).
2 The experiment
2.1 The virtual environment: Babylon
The study was realized in a virtual environment specially
designed for the research. The name of the environment is
‘‘Babylon’’, from the city in which was built the tower that,
according to the Bible, was abandoned because of the
troubles caused by the spread of different languages among
the people working at its construction. Our virtual Babylon
has been built to explore the ways in which people can
overcome differences in perspectives and cognitive
resources while coping with ambiguous situations. Our
Babylon, unlike the biblical one, was designed not as a
place for quarrels but as a scenario for cooperation in
everyday situations. Babylon simulates part of an imagi-
nary Western city, with buildings that have period or
modern facades, shops and other cues normally present in
modern cities. The textures used to create buildings, shops
and parks have been often replicated, letting only little
differences in place such as a fountain, the number of trees
in a park, and so on to mark the differences. This was done
to produce further ambiguity in the environment and make
participants’ reciprocal orientation more difficult.
Babylon is a non-immersive (presented with a 24 in. CRT
display) virtual environment created through software 3D
Studio Max e Virtools Dev.3. The shops and building signs
were created using 3D Studio Max. The virtual space was
represented in the experiment with a resolutions of
Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163 153
123
1,024 · 768 pixel. Babylon can also be used for simulations
in immersive conditions (presented with a head-mounted
display, HMD); we choose not to use immersion because of
the heavy costs of enduring immersion for participants. Past
researches (Gamberini et al. 2003) showed that a high per-
centage of participants was not able to complete an
immersive session lasting longer than 10 min (Fig. 1).
2.2 Participants and conditions
Forty-two students of the Faculty of Psychology of the
University of Padua, 21 males and 21 females, ranging
from 19 to 32 years were distributed as follows: three
couples (1 female–female, 1 male–male, 1 female–male;
total 6 participants) for the preliminary session; 18 couples
(6 male–male, 6 female–female, 6 female–male; total 36
participants) for the experiment. The small scale of the
experiment sample is due both to the explorative character
of the study and to the qualitative methods adopted for the
analysis, mainly ethnographically oriented conversation
analysis. Couples were equally distributed in three condi-
tions: F face-to-face conversation (participants shared the
same physical environment and communicated face to
face); P phone conversation (participants were in physi-
cally separated places and communicated by phone);
C chat (participants were in physically separated places and
communicated through an electronic textual communica-
tion system available when navigating in the virtual
environment). Participants had no prior knowledge of their
partners. Participants were not paid to participate in the
experiment; the motive offered for participation was curi-
osity for the CVE. Before entering the simulation, all
participants were briefed on the aims of the experiment and
informed on the physical and psychological characteristics
of the virtual experience, to which they gave their written
informed consent. Participants declared that they were free
from physical or psychic impediments (especially neural or
vestibular illnesses) that could have made the participation
to the simulation unadvisable and signed permission for
video and audio recordings in be used only for scientific
purposes.
2.3 Avatars
In a virtual environment the ‘‘avatar’’ (this term comes
from the Hindu philosophy and designates an embodied
form of the Goddess) is the digital image of the person who
is navigating the environment. The ‘‘avatar’’ used in the
experiment (provided by the Virtools software we used)
was a tridimensional unisex puppet able to march in every
direction guided through the mouse (right or left) and the
keyboard (up and down arrows). Participants could see the
avatar of their partners when it was in view, but not their
own avatar because the perspective given on the environ-
ment was egocentric, allowing free body and head rotation
(360�). No participant had any trouble using her avatar
during the experiment.
2.4 Instructions and navigation
Participants were instructed to navigate freely within the
virtual city and meet their partner in a place of their choice.
Furthermore, the participants did not have a 2-D paper map of
the city. The study was not focused on the participants’ suc-
cess in achieving the goal of meeting their partner somewhere
but on the efficacy of their communication processes; as a
consequence, negotiation and cooperation, not performance
or speed, was the central focus of the simulation. Researchers
running the simulations did not interfere in any occasion on
the course of actions taken by participants, except when
explicitly requested by the participants. Participants were
moving (in fact, moving their avatars) in Babylon using a
keyboard and a mouse: pressing the key ‘‘arrow up’’ makes
the avatar march forward, the opposite happened when the
key ‘‘arrow down’’ was used; the mouse commanded head
rotations of the avatars on the x and z axes, allowing full
freedom of movement at 360� at a constant value on the y axis.
Fig. 1 Two views of Babylon
from the navigator’s point of
view
154 Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163
123
The participants started their navigation from points diamet-
rically opposite to the city. The specific starting location was a
little alley with a very restricted view and devoid of signifi-
cant reference points, which allowed maximum freedom to
choose a direction. The duration of the navigation was fixed at
15 min; the participants to the experiment were informed of
the assigned span of time.
2.5 Methods
Ethnographically oriented conversation analysis (Duranti
1994, 1997; Mantovani and Spagnolli 2003; Ochs and
Capp 2001; Zucchermaglio 2003) was applied to analyze
video and audio recordings. Phone and face-to-face con-
versations were audio-recorded and transcribed using
Jefferson’s notation system (1986; see Table 1). Computer-
mediated conversations (in the chat experimental condi-
tion) were recorded in a text file (IRC) and formatted to be
compared to the phone and face-to-face conversations. The
different settings for conversation are marked in the paper
by the following letters: F face-to-face conversation, P
phone conversation, C chat.
Video recordings were taken from a frontal point of view
to capture the participants’ visual expressions, facial mimics,
gestures, and postures. This information is necessary in this
research to understand the specific situation of the recorded
interaction under analysis (facial expressions and in general
non-verbal communication were not the aim of the study).
Recordings from the two video cameras running in the
experimental situation were saved on VHS supports. The
images coming from the ‘‘real’’ and the ‘‘virtual’’ environ-
ments were presented on one screen (Gamberini et al. 2003),
and in a second moment, were mixed and synchronized using
Adobe Premiere.
According to an established convention, in our analysis
P1 indicates the participant who in the mixed video
recordings appears in the upper box; P2 indicates the par-
ticipant in the lower box, and SP designates the researcher
running the experiment. For the actions that accompany the
navigation the following notation has been used: A ((nor-
mal)) indicates actions taking place in the virtual
environment while A ((italics)) indicates actions in the
‘‘real’’ environment (Fig. 2).
2.6 The trial and the experiment: from Babylon1
to Babylon
The environment used for the trials—Babylon 1—indi-
cated above had at its center a park with a little fountain
and a tiny pool. The environment used for the experi-
ments—Babylon—was more complex so as to increase the
participants’ engagement—three little parks and another
fountain were added. Special signs were prepared, nine for
the restaurants, eight for the shops, five for the bars, one for
a hotel, one for a cinema, one for a museum, one for a
library, one for a theater, one for a school, one for a syn-
agogue, one for a nondescript church, two for banks and
two for railway stations (Fig. 3).
Table 1 Gail Jefferson’s
notation system(.) Just noticeable pause
(.3), (2.6) Examples of timed pauses
:word,;word Onset of noticeable pitch rise or fall
A:
B:
word [word
[word
Square brackets aligned across adjacent lines denote the start of
overlapping talk
.hh, hh In-breath and out-breath, respectively
wo(h)rd (h) is an attempt to show that the word has ‘‘laughter’’ bubbling within
it
wor- A dash shows a sharp cut-off
wo:rd Colons show that the speaker has stretched the preceding sound
(words) A guess at what might have been said if unclear
( ) Unclear talk
A:
B:
word=
=word
The equals sign shows that there is no discernible pause between two
speakers’ turns or, if put between two sounds within a single
speaker’s turn, shows that they run together
word, WORD Underlined sounds are louder, capitals louder still
�word� Material between ‘‘degree signs’’ is quiet
[word word\\word word[
Inwards arrows show faster speech, outward slower
((sobbing)) Transcriber’s go at representing something hard, or impossible, to
write phonetically
Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163 155
123
3 Results
3.1 Critical events: when situation ambiguity
is perceived
3.1.1 The emergence of critical events
during the navigation
Participants had two intertwined problems to face—ori-
enting themselves in Babylon and establishing effective
communication with their partners—in order to achieve
their goal of meeting somewhere in the city. While each
one of the two tasks separately posed no special prob-
lems, their interference could create problems when the
information visually available (provided by the physical
features of the environment) appeared to collide with the
information socially available (provided by the conver-
sation with the partner). We will call ‘‘critical events’’
(CE) these situations of cognitive conflict which con-
fused the participants about their positions as well as the
course of action to be taken. CE is defined as the
moments in which the potential ambiguity inscribed in
the virtual environment was actually perceived by the
participants.
The following Fig. 4 coupled with excerpt 1 may help
to clarify as to how CE emerged during navigation.
Excerpt 1 refers to a phone conversation (condition P).
Participants’ utterances are marked as P1 and P2; A
means actions taken, both inside and outside the virtual
environment, by participants during their navigations.
Coupling the conversation with the image of Fig. 4 the
reader can understand what is happening: the partners in
couple U see a shop and they are able to locate them-
selves in relation to the shop they see; but they are
disappointed by the fact that the visual (the shop they see
in Fig. 4) and the social information (provided by the
phone channel with the other participant) they have are
inconsistent; they are not able to see each other in front
of the shop, while they expected the common reference
point could be helpful to their locating themselves
Fig. 2 The screen image
uniting the four video sources
(two ‘‘virtual’’ coming from the
two avatars and two ‘‘real’’
coming from the laboratory
settings). P1 indicates the
participant appearing in the
upper box, P2 indicates
the participant appearing in the
lower box. A ((normal)) means
an action happening in the
virtual environment, A((italics)) means an action taken
in the ‘‘real’’ environment
Fig. 3 The maps of Babylon 1
and of Babylon 2; letters in
Babylon 2 refer to different
elements: a fountain,
b restaurant, c shop, d bar,
e bank, f railway station,
g school, h nondescript church, isynagogue, l theater, m cinema,
n hotel, o library, p museum
156 Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163
123
reciprocally (actually—as often happens in everyday
situations—their expectations did not fit perfectly to the
situation because of the fact, as they discovered later,
that in the city there was more than one Tomyno shop).
Disappointment produced by the discovery of the
inconsistency of the information available in the situation
made the participants confused and meant that they had
to look for a ‘‘solution’’ to the emerging ‘‘problem’’.
excerpt 1 Couple U P
13. P1: si io sono davanti a un negozio di vestiti yes I’m facing a clothes shop
14. tipo like
15. P2: °hm: io non vedo niente° °hm: I don’t see anything°
16. P1: tu non hai Niente di negozi, di vie? don’t you get anything on shops, on streets?
17. P2: ecco adesso adesso adesso here now now now
18. P1: qui io[ here I
19. P2: [ ho un negozio dI vestit[i (.) I’ve found a clothes shop
20. tomi? (.) tomi?
21. tomi scritto?
tomi written?22. (.)
23. P1: TOmi si io sono li [(davanti) TOmi yes I’m there (before)
24. P2: [TOMYNO?TOMYNO?
25. A: ((P2 arrives at the Tomyno shop)) 26. P1: (.) Tomyno [si
Tomyno yes27. P1: eh sono anch’io li
eh me too I’m there28. sono proprio all’ingresso
I am just at the entrance29. A: ((P1 moves towards the door of the shop)) 30. P2: eh ma non ti ve:do
eh but I do not se:e you
eh I do not Know
31. P1: [eh n(h)on so (.1)
3.1.2 The emergence of CEs in oral and written talk
Critical event had been set as a central target for the analysis
because it was just in these moments that participants
became aware of the situation ambiguity and tried to
‘‘solve’’ the problem they had to face. CE was present in all
navigations; the total number of CE’s for the entire exper-
iment was 56. The average CE frequency for navigations in
the three conditions was 18.66 (ranging from 8 to 28); the
average CE frequency for condition F was 4.6 (ranging
from 4 to 6); the average CE frequency for condition P was
3.3 (ranging from 2 to 5); the average CE frequency for
condition C was 1.3 (ranging from 1 to 2). The more the
communication condition was ‘‘natural’’, the more CE
happened during the navigation. Talk, both in creating and
in expressing the perception of CE, is essential. Oral talk,
present in face-to-face and phone conditions, proved suit-
able to support smooth communication between partners
and produce a high number of CE’s. Written talk, used in
the chat condition, was more costly in terms of time; this is a
plausible explanation for the low level of CE appearing in
the chat condition. These results are consistent with the
perspective of the study by Clark and Brennan (1991) on
‘‘audibility’’ as an element facilitating negotiation among
participants in different ‘‘speech media’’. The total navi-
gation time recorded in the experiment was 4 h and 1 min.
The total time for CE episodes was 36.8 min (about 15.27%
of the total navigation time). The task of identifying CE was
entrusted to two judges whose accord was very high (94%).
Critical event was present, although with minor fre-
quency, also in written talk; CE appearing in written talk
was similar in structure and richness of expression to the CE
emerging in oral talk. Excerpt 2 presents a dialogue in the
chat condition, which is very similar to the one described in
excerpt 1 which happened in the phone condition.
Fig. 4 The virtual landscape which is referred to in excerpt 1 as the
occasion for emergence of a critical event (CE): the ‘‘Tomyno’’ cloth
shop that participant 1 sees is not the same ‘‘Tomyno’’ cloth shop that
participant 2 discovers, but the face-to-face conversation lets believe
in a first moment to both participants that they are facing the same
shop. The inconsistencies emerge during the navigation from the fact
that the visual information provided to a participant by her
exploration of the virtual landscape collides with the information
provided by the conversation with the partner. This situation is
prototypical of a ‘‘critical event’’ in which situation ambiguity is
perceived and actively dealt with
Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163 157
123
The excerpt shows how a CE happens in the chat con-
dition and how it is negotiated between the participants. At
the beginning of their navigation participants identify a
feature (the Tomyno shop) that they try to use to orient
themselves reciprocally (lines 11–24). In a second moment
(lines 40–49) a problem emerges: they are both in front of
the Tomyno shop but they do not see each other. They are
puzzled by the apparent inconsistency of the situation and
look for a solution (lines 70–83): choosing another refer-
ence feature, a fountain. The dialogue presented above is as
smooth and richly structured as the ones happening in the
face-to-face or phone conditions.
excerpt 2 Couple M C
11. P1: dove sei? where are you?
12. P2: ma in una via mmm in a street.
13. A: [((P1 moves forward)) 14. A: [((P2 moves forward too. She comes to a crossroads. She heads
towards a palace which is made in the same style as a Venetiaone))
15. P2: sono al teatro Piccini I am at the theater Puccini
16. A: ((P1 sees a Tomyno shop and goes to a window)) 17. A: ((P2 enter the street in front of the shop)) 18. P2: tu dove sei
where are you 19. P1: io difronte al negozio TOMYNO
in front of the Tomyno shop20. P2: come si chiama il negozio
what’s the shop’s name? 21. P1: TOMYNO
TOMYNO22. A: ((P2 heads towards the south border of the city)) 23. P2: ok
ok24. P1: ti aspetto qui
I’ll wait here for you....40. P2: sono da Tomyno ma non ti vedo come mai?
I am in front of a Tomyno but I don’t see you why?41. P1: sono qui
I’mhere42. A: ((P2 goes around the building again; then she stops)) 43. P1: sono qui.ma tu sei dentro?
I am here; are you inside? 44. P2: non sono dentro
I am not inside45. A: ((P2 backs)) 46. A: ((P1 turns on herself faces the street and starts walking)) 47. A: ((P2 goes again in face of Tomyno)) 48. P2: dentro dove?
inside where?49. P2: rispondimi
answer me…
70. P2: ci sono 2 negozi uguali stai li che cerco l’altro there are 2 shops that look the same; stay there and I look for the other
71. P2: ti chiederò istruzioni I’ll ask for directions from you
72. A: ((P1 stays in front of Tomyno)) 73. A: ((P2 starts running across the surroundings; she walks towards
the little park then she returns to Tomyno)) 74. P2: è pieno di questi negozi con lo stesso nome
it is full of these shops with the same name 75. P1: credo che ce ne siano più di uno
I think there’s more than one 76. P2: descrivimi più che puoi ciò che ti sta intorno
tell me as best you can about what’s around you 77. A: ((P1 starts running across the surroundings)) 78. A: ((P2 passes again in front of the theatre and goes straight)) 79. A: ((P1 sees a fountain)) 80. P1: c’è una fontana blu elettrico. ci troviamo lì
there is an electric blue fountain here; we meet there81. A: ((P2 looks around herself; on the right side of the park she
sees a fountain)) 82. A: ((P1 is standing in front of her fountain and looks around
herself))83. P2: ok
158 Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163
123
3.1.3 Time and negotiation in the three different
conditions of communication
The average navigation time for the three conditions was:
13.33 min (ranging from 9 to 15 min); average time for
condition F: 13 min (ranging from 9 to 15 min); average
time for condition P 13 min (ranging from 10 to 15 min);
average time for condition C 14,33 min (ranging from 11
to 15 min). The longer time requested by navigation and
communication in condition C (chat condition) can be
attributed to the time required to type on the keyboard and
to wait for an answer before starting a new turn. It could be
also due to the lack of multitasking in chat condition where
participants had to stop every other action to type on the
keyboard (Olson and Olson 2000). All the couples but three
succeeded in meeting in Babylon within the term (15 min)
fixed for the navigation. Of the three failures registered in
the whole simulation, two happened in the chat condition
and one in the face-to-face condition.
3.2 Responding to situation ambiguity: producing
strategies
3.2.1 Strategies to ‘‘solve’’ ambiguity revealed in CEs
The analysis of the interactions taking place within the couple
of participants during their navigation in Babylon shows three
main patterns of response (accord between the two judges
92%): (a) looking for environmental cues; (b) narrowing the
focus of attention; (c) investing in cooperation. Each of the
three strategies stresses one of the possible ways to under-
stand—and to cope with—ambiguity. According to our
model, ambiguity is a relational construction: it emerges
within the relationship between the actor and the environment
and can be conceptualized as a problem coming from ‘‘out-
side’’ (from the environment), or from ‘‘inside’’ (from the
participant’s cognitive processes), or from the relationship
between ‘‘outside’’ and ‘‘inside’’ (the relationship connecting
the navigator, her partner and the virtual city).
The three strategies found in CE reflect the three routes
available to social actors to make sense of the situation
ambiguity: the cause for bewilderment can be attributed to
the ‘‘outside’’ environment, to the ‘‘inside’’ processes, or to
the relationship between ‘‘outside’’ and ‘‘inside’’, that is
between the actor and her social and physical environment.
The three strategies are present in all conditions and in
every navigation. No fixed preference for a particular
strategy has been found between the couples of partici-
pants. No effect of conditions of communication between
partners (F, P, C) was found. Possible situational or per-
sonal features that could trigger the preference for a given
strategy will be the object of further investigation.
The first strategy, looking for environmental cues,
emphasizes the contribution that the environment makes to
the generation of ambiguity. Following this strategy, the
participant looks for further information coming from the
environment. The second strategy, narrowing attention
focus, looks for more accurate information seeking. The
third strategy, investing in cooperation, focuses on the
interaction and expects a ‘‘solution’’ from a more effective
communication within the local cognitive and pragmatic
system. Instances of the three strategies are presented
below.
3.2.2 Working on the outside source of ambiguity: looking
for environmental cues
The first strategy emphasizes the contribution of the envi-
ronment to the production of the experience of ambiguity.
Excerpts 2 and 3 show examples of communications
among participants in condition one (face-to-face, F)
intended to detect the environmental cues in order to solve
the problem of identifying their mutual positions.
Participants are positioned at their starting points. They
are doing their first steps in the lane. They do not have any
sign or landscape reference to guide them. Participant
1 asks the researcher for some information about the
dimensions of the virtual city. When she does not obtain
the information she starts her navigation looking for visual
elements that could offer relevant cues. Elements in the
Excerpt 3
Couple G F
27. P1: ci mettiamo una vita [a trovarci it will take a lifetime for us to meet
28. P2: [no infa::tti no, really
29. A: ((P2 turns towards the experimenter)) 30. P2: ma quanto è gr ande <scusa>. sto posto?
but how big is <excuse me> this place?
31. tanto? very?
33. A: ((P2 sees a palace in Venetian Style 34. with a yellow sign)) 35. P2: scoltami:: so:no a:l tea:tro gi pucci:ni
listen to me: I a:m a:t the thea:ter gi puccini36. P1: sì: va bè bellissimo
yes; it’s ok very fine37. A: [((P1 laughs)) 38. P2: [bello no?
beautiful, isn’t it?39. A: ((P1 sees a fountain)) 40. P1: vabbè tu hai presente dov’è la fontana?
ok do you see where the fountain is?41. P2: no
no42. A: ((P2 looks around herself and then heads 43. on her right towards a park 44. that is visible in the distance)) 45. P1: e(h) trovat(h)ela(h)
e(h) I found (h) there (h)46. A: ((P1 laughs))
Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163 159
123
environment that at first sight seem to be shared (theater
Puccini, lines 35–38) and to offer cues useful to build a
common ground among the participants are in a second
moment recognized—on the basis of (phone) conversa-
tion—as problematic (the fountain is seen by participant 1
but not by participant 2, lines 40–41). Exploration contin-
ues still trying to use visual cues.
Visual cues alone are not sufficient to build a common
view of the city (Babylon is too complex to allow quick
and successful visual orientation), so participants try to
establish general reference criteria based on their previous
experience in the city such as the opposition centre-
periphery (that this couple found useful before) to guide
them in their navigations.
This strategy is present in 68 occurrences (30% of total
strategies) and is distributed as follow: 27 occurrences
(31%) in condition F, 22 occurrences (27%) in condition P;
19 occurrences (33%) in condition C. Percentages of the
occurrences of the first strategy in the various conditions
are: 40% F, 32% P, 28% C.
3.2.3 Working on the inside source of ambiguity:
narrowing the focus of attention
Participant can try to reduce the ambiguity that emerges in
the CE by looking for specific information—such as
peculiar shop signs—which could help them to achieve
mutual orientation. This strategy consists of narrowing the
attention focus on aspects of the environment that could
offer specially relevant information: in the following
excerpt we see that one participant asks her partner to go
‘‘hunting for’’ some signs. The partner agrees and the
couple adopts this explicitly negotiated strategy.
The above (phone) conversation takes place in a
moment in which the couple of participants has navigated
for some minutes and has acquired a partial knowledge of
the virtual city. They try to infer the position of the
partner they have to meet from features of the environ-
ment but they know that the environment has a complex
structure so they resort to the strategy of focusing their
attention on possibly relevant information present in
Babylon. Participant 1 discovers a bus station sign and
signals it to the partner, without immediate success with
respect to their common goal; participant 2 does not see
this sign. But participant 1 insists: she proposes to her
partner to keep ‘‘hunting signs’’. The focus of attention
is narrowed on a particular feature of the environment,
Excerpt 4 Couple G F
47. P2: scolta: io: boh comincio a: cammina:re:: hey: I: er start: wa:lki::ng
48. P1: sEnti che ne dici di farci il giro: liSTEn what do you think about doing
49. laterale? a lateral turn?
50. A: ((P1 continues to walk towards a little park)) 51. P2: della?
of?52. P1: hai presente che a un certo punto c’è il
are you aware that at a certain point there is the53. vuoto accanto dove finisce la città. se
empty place near to where the city ends. if54. noi ci giriamo il perimetro↓ è probabile
we walk around the edge I expect55. che ci troviamo.(non ti [va?)
we’ll meet (it does not suit it to you?)56. P2: [scolta:: in
listen: : in57. centro più che altro
the centre preferably58. P1: in centro? (.) bè occh[ei
in the centre? (.) well ok59. A: ((P2 continues walking 60. towards the park)) 61. P2: [c’è tipo: un
there is kind of: a62. parchetto: con tutti gli alberi:
little park: with lots of trees;63. P1: sì a fianco [gli alberi (.)
yes beside the trees (.)64. P2: [allora vai lì
then go there
Excerpt 5 Couple E F
41. P2: sei in mezzo ai p[alazzi anche t:u?are you in the middle of the palaces too?
42. A: ((P2 looks around herself)) 43. P1: [ehm: sono davanti
ehm: I’m in front44. esatto sono in mezzo a due palazzi[:
exactly I’m between two palaces45. P2: [(si
[( yes46. gira verso destra)
turn on the right)47. A: ((P2 stops)) 48. P1: [il primo ehm:=sche ho trovato sulla mia
the first ehm:=swhat I found on my49. sinistra c'è scritto apab autostazione
left; there’s a sign for a APAB bus station50. (.) 51. A: ((P2 takes up advancing)) 52. [((P1 takes up advancing)) 53. [((P2 stops)) 54. P1: [tu vedi qualcosa del genere [in giro?
do you see something like around?55. A: [((P2 takes up advancing again)) 56. P2: [c’è un palazzo:
there’s a palace57. sembra: sullo stile:
it seems: in the style:58. [di quelli a venezia hai presente?
of those in Venice do you know?59. P1: [mh mh (.)60. A: ((P1 looks around))61. P1: mh m[h 62. P2: [però: scritte non ne vedo da nessuna
but: I don’t see any sign63. parte
anywhere 64. A: ((P2 turns on her left)) 65. (.1) 66. ((P1 turns on the left and cuts 67. the corner of a palace)) 68. P1: vabbè andiamo in giro a caccia di scritte
okkey let’s go hunting signs 69. e vediamo se ci troviamo davanti alla
and see if we find ourselves in face of 70. stessa
the same
160 Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163
123
making the encounter of a common sign a possible
solution for the experienced ambiguity.
This strategy is present in 92 occurrences (41% of total
strategies) and is distributed as follow: 37 occurrences
(43%) in condition F, 32 occurrences (40%) in condition P;
23 occurrences (40%) in condition C. Percentages of the
occurrences of the second strategy in the various conditions
are: 40 F, 35 P, 25 C.
3.2.4 Working on the interaction as source of ambiguity:
investing on cooperation
A third strategy that emerges during the navigation within
Babylon is that of trying to build a common scenario. In
this case the two partners invest significant time and effort
in sharing information about the pieces of urban landscape
that each of them is currently seeing.
The strategy of trying to build a common ground among
participants, which is frequent in work situations, has been
extensively studied by Orr (1996), Wenger (1998), and
Wenger and Snyder (2000). In this strategy each of the two
members of the couple seems to invest in the other as a
resource for the solution of the problem at hand. For this
reason they are so much interested in the quality of mutual
understanding that they can even stop communicating about
their positions within Babylon to start talking about what
they know on ‘‘relief maps’’, as we see at lines 113–117. In
this case we see that a doubt on possible misunderstandings,
triggered by the question in lines 113–114, is met through
an explicit negotiation turn which reveals that in this
moment the need of being sure of what the other partner
thinks takes precedence over the need of knowing what she
is seeing in her part of the environment.
This strategy is present in 64 occurrences (29% of total
strategies) and is distributed as follows: 22 occurrences
(26%) in condition F, 27 occurrences (33%) in condition P;
15 occurrences (26%) in condition C. Percentages of the
occurrences of the third strategy in the various conditions
are: 35 F, 42 P, 23 C.
4 General discussion
The first observation coming from the analysis of the data
is that the response of participants to the virtual environ-
ment shows the emergence of specific patterns within the
three communication conditions provided by the simula-
tion. This from one hand confirms the presence of
(perceived) situation ambiguity, and from the other hand
the importance of conditions of communication between
partners. The effect of ambiguity on the navigation speed
and generally on participants’ performance is outside the
scope of the present study because a reliable performance
metric on navigation within this sort of complex virtual
environment is hardly feasible, and scarcely meaningful.
Data on the navigation time can be referred to the problem
solving and to the negotiation process evoked by the
appearance of ambiguity. In the chat condition, due to the
greater time costs of written communication, navigation
times are slightly longer and CEs are significantly longer
than in the two other conditions. This fact, along with the
higher rate of failure in achieving the goal of meeting in the
virtual city (reported above, in ‘‘Results’’), shows that
negotiating is more difficult using written rather than oral
talk. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, in spite of the
considerable time costs of writing messages versus
speaking to the partner, chat can allow the emergence of
CEs in a fully structured form, as was shown in the above
excerpt 2. Navigation times (total navigation time minus
time for strategies and time of CEs) in the three conditions
are presented in Fig. 5.
Analysis of the data on the appearance of strategies
shows the presence of a strong (with only one exception)
pattern of response in the three conditions of communica-
tion considered. Figure 6 presents the occurrences of
strategies in the three conditions.
Excerpt 6Couple E F
87. P1: h↑o i palazzi sulla destra h↓o i palazzi I got the palaces on the right I got the palaces
88. sulla destra e:: sì che hanno un po’ lo on the right e:: yes they are a little
89. stampo dei palazzi di veneziani like the Venetian ones
90. effettivamente e su:l-è percorro un-u:n really and o:n is I’m walking on a
91. marciapiede e abbiamo un marciapiede ma non sidewalk and we have a sidewalk but
92. c’è nulla sulla mia sinistr[a there’s nothing on my left
93. P2: [a(h) ho capito a(h) I understand
94. vedi il nulla? sei-praticamente solo il do you see anything? you are-practically only the
95. cielo? (.) no sky? (.) no
96. P1: m:no (.) ti spiego (.) è come se fosse u:n m.no (.) I explain it to you (.) it is like a:
97. (.1) 98. e:m una specie di plastico e io sto
e:m sort of relief map and I am99. camminando sul bordo di questo plastico
walking on the edge of this relief map...109. v↑abbè adesso entro
okey now I get in110. all’interno del plastico perché adesso
into the relief map because now111. sono-sono proprio sul confi[ne
I am I am exactly on the edge...113. P2: [all’interno
into114. del plastico?
the relief map?115. P1: ma [sai cos’è un plastico tu?
do you know what a relief map is 116. P2: [°sì: ho una pallida idea ma penso-°
yes I have a faint idea but I think117. P1: è la riproduzione in piccola scala di[::::
yes it is the reproduction on a smaller scale of
Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163 161
123
The second strategy is the most preferred in every
condition, followed by the first strategy in the other con-
ditions, with the notable exception of the third strategy
being the second preferred in the phone condition. Further
research is required to clarify possible origins of this
preference in the phone condition.
5 Conclusion: ambiguity, CEs, strategies in their social
context
This study explores an area of cooperation in virtual
environments that has been until now scarcely considered
in spite of its considerable social and scientific relevance.
The question addressed is: how do people cope with
ambiguous situation, which are often present in working
and living situations? To simulate cooperation in ambigu-
ous situations in a virtual environment we built a city,
Babylon, which proved fit to allow joint explorations of
pairs of participants that—in all the cases except three—
did achieve their goal of meeting somewhere in a city that
they did not know in advance.
The study of ambiguity focused on CEs analysed
through qualitative methods (ethnographically oriented
conversation analysis) of video and audio recordings of
both the navigation within Babylon and the cooperation
between the partners involved. The pragmatic resources
used by participants have also been investigated. Three
different strategies, consistent with the three components
involved in the construction of (perceived) situation
ambiguity, were identified: looking for further environ-
mental cues, narrowing the focus of attention, investing on
cooperation with the partner.
Further investigation remains to be done in three
directions. The first direction is clarifying how strategies
are selected and tried by participants, and how participants
shift with apparent ease from a strategy to another in their
approach to situation ambiguity. The second direction is
focusing on the ways in which leadership is taken and
recognized within the couples during the navigation; how
pragmatic alignment is achieved between people who do
not know each other in advance? The third direction is on
gender and leadership in choice of strategies: how is gen-
der—both ‘‘real’’ and simulated through the appearance of
the avatar—involved in cooperation face to ambiguous
situations?
References
Bayon V, Griffiths G, Wilson JR (2006) Multiple decoupled
interaction: an interaction design approach for groupware
interaction in co-located virtual environments. Int J Hum
Comput Stud 64(3):192–206
Benford S, Bowers J, Fahlen L, Mariani J, Rodden T (1994)
Supporting cooperative work in virtual environments. Comput J
38(4):653–668
Bødker S (1996) Creating conditions for participation: conflicts and
resources in systems development. Hum Comput Interact
11(3):215
Churchill EF, Snowdon D (1998) Collaborative virtual environments:
an introductory review of issues and systems. Virtual Real
3(1):3–15
Clancey WJ (1993) Situated action. A neuropsychological interpre-
tation—response to vera and simon. Cognit Sci 17:87–116
Clancey WJ (1997) Situated cognition: on human knowledge and
computer representations. Cambridge University Press, New
York
Clark A (1997) Being there. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. In:
Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on
socially shared cognition. APA, Washington, pp 127–149
Cottone P, Mantovani G (2003) Grounding ‘‘subjective views’’.
Situation awareness and co-reference in distance learning. In:
Riva G, Davide F, Ijssenterijn WA (eds) Being there: concepts,
effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environ-
ments. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 250–260
Duranti A (1994) From grammar to politics. University of California
Press, Berkeley
Duranti A (1997) Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Engestrom Y, Middleton D (eds) (1996) Cognition and communica-
tion at work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Gamberini L, Cottone P, Spagnolli A, Varotto D, Mantovani G (2003)
Responding to a fire emergency in a virtual environment:
different patterns of action for different situations. Ergonomics
46(8):842–858
Fig. 6 Occurrences of strategies across the different communication
conditions
Fig. 5 Total navigation time, time spent in strategies, and time of
CEs in the three conditions
162 Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163
123
Gaver WW, Beaver J, Benford S (2003) Ambiguity as a resource for
design. Paper presented at the CHI 2003, Ft Lauderdale, FL
Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception.
Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Goodwin C (1994) Professional vision. Am Anthropol 96(3):606–633
Goodwin C, Goodwin MH (1996) Seeing as situated activity:
formulating planes. In: Engestrom Y, Middleton D (eds)
Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 61–96
Hanks WF (1990) Referential practice. Language and lived space
among the Maya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Heath C, Luff P (1992) Collaboration and control: crisis management
and multimedia technology in London underground line control
rooms. Comput Support Coop Work 1:69–94
Heath C, Luff P (1996) Convergent activities: line control and
passenger information on the London underground. In: Enge-
strom Y, Middleton D (eds) Cognition and communication at
work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 96–129
Hindmarsh J, Fraser M, Heath C, Benford S, Greenhalgh C (2000)
Object-focused interaction in collaborative virtual environments.
ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(4):477–509
Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Hutchins E, Palen P (1997) Constructing meaning from space,
gesture, and speech. In: Resnick LB, Saljo R, Pontecorvo C,
Burge B (eds) Discourse, tools, and reasoning. Springer, Berlin,
pp 23–40
Jefferson G (1986) Notes on ‘‘latency’’ in overlap onset. Hum Stud
9:153–183
Kirk D, Crabtree A, Rodden T (2005) Ways of the hands. Paper
presented at the ECSCW’05, Paris, France
Koleva B, Schnadelbach H, Benford S, Greenhalgh C (2000)
Traversable interfaces between real and virtual worlds. Paper
presented at the CHI 2000. The Hague, Amsterdam
Kuzouka H, Kosaka J, Yamazaki K, Suga Y, Yamazaky A, Luff P
et al (2004) Mediating dual ecologies. Paper presented at the
CSCW’04, Chicago
Mantovani G (1996a) New communication environments. From
everyday to virtual. Taylor & Francis, London
Mantovani G (1996b) Social context in HCI: a new framework for
mental models, cooperation and communication. Cognit Sci
20:237–269
Mantovani G, Spagnolli A (2003) Metodi qualitativi in psicologia. il
Mulino, Bologna
Mills KL (2001) Situated computing: the next frontier for HCI
research. In: Carroll J (ed) Human–computer interaction in the
new millennium. Addison–Wesley, Reading, pp 535–550
Nardi B (1996) Context and consciousness. Activity theory and
human–computer interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge
Ochs E, Capp L (2001) Living narrative. Creating lives in everyday
storytelling. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Hum Comput Interact
15:139–178
Orr J (1996) Talking about machines: an ethnography of a modern
job. ILR Press, Ithaca
Streitz NA, Tandler P, Muller-Tomfelde C, Konomi S (2001)
Roomware: towards the next generation of human–computer
interaction based on an integrated design of real and virtual
worlds. In: Carroll J (ed) Human–computer interaction in the
new millennium. Addison–Wesley, Reading, pp 553–578
Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human–
machine communication. Cambridge University Press, New
York
Suchman L (1996) Constituting shared workplaces. In: Engestrom Y,
Middleton D (eds) Cognition and communication at work.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 35–60
Suchman L (1997) Centers of coordination: a case and some themes.
In: Resnick LB, Saljo R, Pontecorvo C, Burge B (eds) Discourse,
tools, and reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–62
Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and
identity. Cambridge University Press, New York
Wenger E, Snyder WM (2000) Communities of practice: the
organizational frontier. Harv Bus Rev 61(1):139–145
Zucchermaglio C (2003) Contesti di vita quotidiana, interazione e
discorso. In: Mantovani G, Spagnolli A (eds) Metodi qualitativi
in psicologia. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp 47–72
Cogn Tech Work (2009) 11:151–163 163
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.