Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Elizabeth S. Veinott

dblp:38/1271 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0002-1446-4792ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Collaborative and social computing · 95% Usability and user experience research · 5%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
computer-mediated communication
0.012002
Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities · CHI 2002
Collaborative and social computing › computer-mediated communication
trust building
0.012002
Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities · CHI 2002
Collaborative and social computing
remote work
0.011999
Video Helps Remote Work: Speakers Who Need to Negotiate Common Ground Benefit from Seeing Each Other · CHI 1999
Collaborative and social computing
video conferencing
0.011999
Video Helps Remote Work: Speakers Who Need to Negotiate Common Ground Benefit from Seeing Each Other · CHI 1999

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

controlled experiment · 0.0conversational analysis · 0.0comparative study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Changing Perspectives: Examining Factors Related To Counterfactual Thinking In Ambiguous Social Judgments
Betsy R. Lehman, Elizabeth S. Veinott
CogSci2
2018 Testing the effectiveness of crossword games on immediate and delayed memory for scientific vocabulary and concepts
Shane T. Mueller, Elizabeth S. Veinott
CogSci2
2002 Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities
abstract
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is thought to be inadequate when one needs to establish trust. If, however, people meet before using CMC, they trust each other, trust being established through touch. Here we show that if participants do not meet beforehand but rather engage in various getting-acquainted activities over a network, trust is much higher than if they do nothing beforehand, nearly as good as a prior meeting. Using text-chat to get acquainted is nearly as good as meeting, and even just seeing a picture is better than nothing
Jun Zheng 0011, Elizabeth S. Veinott, Nathan Bos, Judith S. Olson, Gary M. Olson
CHI2
1999 Video Helps Remote Work: Speakers Who Need to Negotiate Common Ground Benefit from Seeing Each Other
abstract
More and more organizations are forming teams that are not co-located. These teams communicate via email, fax, telephone and audio conferences, and sometimes video. The question often arises whether the cost of video is worth it. Previous research has shown that video makes people more satisfied with the work, but it doesnt help the quality of the work itself. There is one exception; negotiation tasks are measurably better with video. In this study, we show that the same effect holds for a more subtle form of negotiation, when people have to negotiate meaning in a conversation. We compared the performance and communication of people explaining a map route to each other. Half the pairs have video and audio connections, half only audio. Half of the pairs were native speakers of English; the other half were non-native speakers, those presumably who have to negotiate meaning more. The results showed that non-native speaker pairs did benefit from the video; native speakers did not. Detailed analysis of the conversational strategies showed that with video, the non-native speaker pairs spent proportionately more effort negotiating common ground.
Elizabeth S. Veinott, Judith S. Olson, Gary M. Olson, Xiaolan Fu
CHI1