Video Call Glitches Evoke Uncanniness, Damage Consequential Life Outcomes (nature.com) 52
Those brief freezes and audio hiccups that plague video calls are not the benign nuisances that most people assume them to be, according to a new study published in Nature that found glitches during virtual interactions can meaningfully damage hiring prospects, reduce trust in healthcare providers and even correlate with lower chances of being granted parole.
Researchers from Columbia, Cornell, and the University of Missouri-Kansas City conducted ten studies examining glitches across thousands of participants and real-world parole hearing transcripts. The core finding is that glitches harm interpersonal judgments because they break the illusion of face-to-face contact, triggering what psychologists call "uncanniness" -- a strange, creepy, or eerie feeling typically associated with humanoid robots or CGI characters that look almost but not quite human.
In one experiment, participants watching a telehealth pitch chose to work with a health professional 77% of the time when no glitches occurred, but only 61% when brief freezes were present. The job interview studies found similar patterns, and when researchers examined 472 Kentucky parole hearings conducted over Zoom, they found that inmates were granted parole 60% of the time in glitch-free hearings versus 48% when transcripts indicated technical problems had occurred.
The researchers ruled out simpler explanations like mere disruption or comprehension difficulties. Glitches inserted during natural pauses in speech -- where no information was lost -- still damaged evaluations. And critically, when participants watched presentations where a shared screen froze rather than a human face, glitches had no effect on judgments at all. The uncanniness only emerged when the technology broke the simulation of sitting across from another person.
Researchers from Columbia, Cornell, and the University of Missouri-Kansas City conducted ten studies examining glitches across thousands of participants and real-world parole hearing transcripts. The core finding is that glitches harm interpersonal judgments because they break the illusion of face-to-face contact, triggering what psychologists call "uncanniness" -- a strange, creepy, or eerie feeling typically associated with humanoid robots or CGI characters that look almost but not quite human.
In one experiment, participants watching a telehealth pitch chose to work with a health professional 77% of the time when no glitches occurred, but only 61% when brief freezes were present. The job interview studies found similar patterns, and when researchers examined 472 Kentucky parole hearings conducted over Zoom, they found that inmates were granted parole 60% of the time in glitch-free hearings versus 48% when transcripts indicated technical problems had occurred.
The researchers ruled out simpler explanations like mere disruption or comprehension difficulties. Glitches inserted during natural pauses in speech -- where no information was lost -- still damaged evaluations. And critically, when participants watched presentations where a shared screen froze rather than a human face, glitches had no effect on judgments at all. The uncanniness only emerged when the technology broke the simulation of sitting across from another person.
Sounds about right (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't Sell Yourself Short (Score:2)
You're not a company resource.
You're a tool.
I don't know I think you are more like a resource (Score:5, Insightful)
People are stupid and impatient (Score:3)
If you can't understand that some of what you're experiencing is flaws in the technology and make allowances for that, you're a big dumb-dumb.
This is what happens when you dumb people down to create low information voters, you wind up with a populace that doesn't know how anything works, including themselves.
Re:People are stupid and impatient (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the dumbest features of midwits is that they think they control their impulses.
For most impulses, your awareness of them is borderline irrelevant to affecting outcomes that come as their result. We've established this beyond reasonable doubt in fMRI. Delusion machine that tells us that "our conscious mind is behind our decision making" is nothing but one small feature of our actual decision making machine.
Most of which has made the decision based on inputs before it ever hit your conscious mind. Again, midwits will fight this, and deny it. But we can see the decision making process in fMRI. We can see how it works. And it is indeed a midwit delusion that you have some kind of a magical free will over it. All you actually have is a part in your frontal lobe that rewrites the conclusions to make you believe your conscious mind is the one who made it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like an appropriate response to OP, who apparently also feels superior.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering I just described how inferior I find human decision making patterns to be, that is a hilariously stupid accusation to level at me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you quite finished feeling superior, dipshit?
You didn't try to rebut Luckyo's explicitly stated argument, yet you seem angry about the feeling of superiority which you inferred from his post.
It's easy to fall prey to your feelings in a place like this, isn't it? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us employ a filter between thoughts and speech. It's what keeps us from referring to each other as "midwits".
Re: (Score:2)
fMRI doesn't measure thought speech. It measures through magnetic resonance imaging of specific parts of the brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is dumb, some of the time. Especially, when they call others "dumb." There is much more complexity to this issue, than just lack of intelligence.
You're right, we have a populace that doesn't know how things work. How many people know how an automatic transmission works? Electric circuits? Of course, computers and software. Not knowing how things work, doesn't make people dumb. It makes them human. Only a few people *do* know how things work. That's why we're engineers and others aren't.
"Low informa
Re:People are stupid and impatient (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe. Or maybe many millions of years of evolution has created brains that make snap judgements because it is more efficient to do so. Evolution has probably created a rule that if something looks odd, it likely is odd and ought to be treated as such. Much of this sort of processing isn't done at a conscious level - so overriding it is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Or maybe many millions of years of evolution has created brains that make snap judgements because it is more efficient to do so. Evolution has probably created a rule that if something looks odd, it likely is odd and ought to be treated as such. Much of this sort of processing isn't done at a conscious level - so overriding it is hard.
Then what in our evolutionary history caused us to have the uncanny valley [simplypsychology.org]? About the only thing I can come up with is during our evolutionary rising, when we saw other humanoid beings on the plains of Africa, we had to determine if they were like us or not. And by us, I mean as pre-homo sapiens existing at that time.
If it wasn't something on the plains, was it another being we're not aware of?
Re: (Score:3)
Then what in our evolutionary history caused us to have the uncanny valley?
Diseases and dead people, for one. Belonging to a different tribe/culture/race (it's actually one of the reasons for ritual scars, later tattoos and haircuts, specific clothing, uniforms and so on).
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is a big dumb-dumb then, including you and me.
That's how human brains work, no amount of understanding will change that. You can work around the problem, like they do in aviation, using strict protocols, but even with that in mind, sometimes, "glitches" in radio communication have deadly consequences, including the worst accident in the history of aviation, the Tenerife disaster.
And the proper response to a technology that is flawed is to fix it, not have people learn how to deal with it. Education
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't understand that some of what you're experiencing is flaws in the technology and make allowances for that, you're a big dumb-dumb.
Well, you might notice that these researchers apparently ignored the first (and simplest) explanation that popped into my mind - that a person might simply be less likely to choose "virtual" interactions with someone, going forward, if they get the impression the other person has an annoyingly unreliable internet connection.
Frequency And Duration? (Score:2)
How frequent were the glitches and what were their duration.
I can see persistent stuttering video causing me to have a negative perception. But, one or two Max Headroom moments in a half hour call will have zero effect.
A picture is worth zero words (Score:2)
Personally, I don't understand people's obsession with most video calls. I push back on them whenever possible. I am just fine with a phone call. I don't need nor want to see your face, and you don't need to see mine. Nor do I need all the hassle and wasted time that goes with it.... almost every time the others saying, can you hear me? And I out out of sync? I can't see you, etc; plus long links, waiting rooms, poor connections, software problems, bandwidth issues, entering passwords, other technical
Re: (Score:3)
Two reasons for the prescribed time.
1) Many non-interactive Webinars are at heart advertising. The prescribed time is there to force engagement on you. The effect is similar to the glitch effect - by making you think of this as important, they hope to get more of your attention and perhaps think better of the topic.
2) Cheaper. If they give a prescribed time they do not have to pay for video storage and similar services. You can just throw up a time and use an existing video conferencing service you alrea
Smell a possible lawsuit or two (Score:3)
Can you claim that you were denied parole due to a technical glitch? Or that you lost a job prospect for the same reason? Can a care provider claim their ISP or similar is responsible for worsening patient outcomes?
Re: (Score:2)
You can sue for anything. In case of something like parole, it would get thrown out immediately because of obvious qualified immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you claim that you were denied parole due to a technical glitch? Or that you lost a job prospect for the same reason? Can a care provider claim their ISP or similar is responsible for worsening patient outcomes?
Oh, a couple years ago I had a job interview that someone insisted on doing on Zoom. The sole reason I lost the job? The camera was malpositioned. They told the recruiter it was "the worst interview we've ever had." The actual interview went well: It was the Zoom video part of the call that didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The sole reason I lost the job?
At a guess? Your inability to understand or accept that your view of the world does not define reality, or possibly even relate to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Give that the glitches are dependent on the quality of the connection, and the quality of internet service is depending on location, and poor neighborhoods with low quality internet correlates pretty closely to Not Being White (and being rural, but that's a much smaller percentage of the population), yeah, lawsuits are inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you demand an in person parole hearing?
It's said that in the UK, if you are innocent you should ask for a judge trial. If you are guilty, ask for a jury. Playing the odds has long been part of our "justice" system.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the state. Each state of the union has their own parole procedures. The Fed doesn't do parole the vast majority of the time.
Personally, I do judge people (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. It's kind of like dressing for success. How you present yourself matters. And a decent internet connection doesn't have to be expensive anymore, even cellphone tethering provides good connection quality these days.
When I started working remotely, I went to the trouble to repaint my office (which used to be a bedroom) a neutral color that would look good on camera. I added lighting and wall art positioned to look good on camera. I don't mind if people's rooms are visible in the background, but at least
Re: (Score:2)
What I gather is dressing for success isn't enough anymore, you may need to do a home remodeling as well.
Depending on your situation that may not be too big of an issue. But for renters, or people who don't have a spare room to convert to a streaming studio, that could be a tall order. Especially for something you might only need to do once a year, or less, depending on your job.
Re: Personally, I do judge people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No need to remodel. A plain wall decorated tastefully is sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it tasteful to have a bed against the wall? The reply in front of yours told me I'm not allowed to hide it by angling the camera upwards.
There is another room where I could get a shot with a bookcase instead of a bed - if I set up some kind of rig there to position a camera. That would involve buying a tripod at a minimum, but more likely moving my entire desk and PC setup. All the video calls I've done, I have needed a computer as well as a camera.
Re: (Score:2)
... it's much to dark
Personally, I judge people on whether they can correctly use "too" when appropriate. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes perfect sense when dealing with someone who should have technical skills, or in a context of technical know-how, like an interview for an IT position.
For a job interview for non-technical positions, though, you're just showing that you know as little about people as they do about computers. Which is a definite red flag.
It makes things so frustrating (Score:3)
It makes things so frustrating. My boss insists on using VOIP on his cell phone because according to him having a data only plan and using VOIP is cheaper than getting a regular mobile plan.
Most of the time I talk to him it's just constantly cutting out and the call quality just isn't the same. Even when it's behaving reasonably well it just has weird behaviours and often times you have to call two or three times before it really works.
I keep on telling him he needs to switch it out, but he's really stubborn about this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the VOIP, it's your boss's specific plan or carrier. VOIP doesn't have to be choppy.
Just do audio calls (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a company culture thing. My previous company was always audio only. My current company is much more interested in having people on camera. Audio only is fine for information-focused meetings. But for interviews and 1x1s, where the context is more personal, I insist on camera-on.
Oh, and audio-only doesn't eliminate glitches, if you've got a bad connection.
Re: (Score:2)
While it isn't part of the study, I am willing to bet that audio-only glitches are less important than video glitches with respect to perception. We are used to audio being drowned out by something else. In another post I referred to evolutionary reasons for video glitches being so disturbing. Audio is different than video... there are often other noises that might drown out the signal (e.g. a bird squawking during conversation or a baby crying) but the video is rarely interrupted. So the effect of audio gl
The simulation broke :o (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I stridently disagree. A voice conversation of some sort is almost always going to be more efficient than an email one.
Video is more efficient than email and phone is more efficient than video (really, I mean it: take a hard look at how much time is spent just dialing a number versus setting up a video call). In-person is the most efficient of all.
Carefully measure how much time it takes you to write a carefully-worded email versus just saying what's on your mind. For me, the ratio is about 5:1. And the
Re: (Score:3)
Carefully measure how much time it takes you to write a carefully-worded email versus just saying what's on your mind.
Be sure to also compare the difference between a - in your words - "carefully-worded" email versus some dipshit rambling on in a stream-of-consciousness babble. Specifically, how long it takes both people to communicate that way, versus, one while writing the email.
In short, it depends on the subject matter that needs to be communicated, and you're both full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on who called the meeting, why, and (this part gets left out) who is participating.
Meetings aren't useless, people are.
It's the new Dress for Success (Score:2)
Back when everything was in person, people counseled job seekers to "dress for success"--to wear clothes that would communicate a professional appearance. Interviewers would often not give a second chance to people who came in scruffily or too-casually dressed.
These days, if you don't know how to handle yourself on camera, or if your background isn't presentable, or your connection is glitchy, it's seen as not being prepared.
When I last interviewed for a job 3 years ago, I literally practiced video calls to
This doesn't surprise me. (Score:2)
It makes sense actually. If there are pauses and breaks in communication, even though you are understanding and empathic to the situation, it still leaves negative impressions on the overall communication itself.
It reminds me when I'm completely failing to communicate with someone that doesn't speak the same language as me. I give all strangers the benefit of the doubt that they are of average intelligence and education and can therefore usually communicate, but when there is a language or communications ba
Fake News (Score:2)
I recently had a perfectly normal video interview with this cheerful chap named Max Headroom
Kentucky parole hearings (Score:3)
Were these hearings all for prisoners from a single facility, or were they from all over the state?
I could be wrong, but I'd guess that - because of the nature of their crimes - parole is less likely to be granted to someone in a maximum-security prison versus other facilities. And Kentucky only has one maximum security prison - in a rural area halfway between Louisville and Paducah. I expect rural internet in Kentucky is of lower quality than what's available in more populated parts of the state. If that's indeed the situation, it might be hard to separate whether the issue was video glitches or simply the nature of the crimes involved.
Work from home? (Score:2)
In a lot of companies, this finding could end up being the last nail in the coffin of Work from Home.
Sadly, it probably won't reduce the number of in-office video conferences mandated by management and HR.