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

Jamie Guillory

dblp:98/6207 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
0000-0001-9765-2299ORCID · corroborated

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3 · 1 first-author

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
3 papers
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
computer-mediated communication
0.332011
Upset now?: emotion contagion in distributed groups · CHI 2011
"on my way": deceptive texting and interpersonal awareness narratives · CSCW 2010
Butler lies: awareness, deception and design · CHI 2009
Collaborative and social computing › awareness
interpersonal awareness
0.122010
"on my way": deceptive texting and interpersonal awareness narratives · CSCW 2010
Butler lies: awareness, deception and design · CHI 2009
Collaborative and social computing › computer-mediated communication
emotional contagion
0.112011
Upset now?: emotion contagion in distributed groups · CHI 2011
Collaborative and social computing › computer-mediated communication
deception
0.112009
Butler lies: awareness, deception and design · CHI 2009
Collaborative and social computing › remote collaboration
distributed groups
0.012011
Upset now?: emotion contagion in distributed groups · CHI 2011

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

field study · 0.2emotion induction · 0.1controlled experiment · 0.1SMS user study · 0.1experience sampling · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 Upset now?: emotion contagion in distributed groups
abstract
The importance of emotion to group outcomes in FtF highlights the need to understand emotion contagion in distributed groups. The present study examines the transfer of negative emotion in online groups. Negative emotion was induced in one of three group members completing a task in CMC. The data suggest that emotion contagion took place at the group level, with partners experiencing more negative emotion, more disagreement, higher verbosity, and use of more complex language in induced groups compared to control groups. Induced groups also performed better on the group task, raising questions about the effects of negative emotion contagion in online groups.
Jamie Guillory, Jason Spiegel, Molly Drislane, Benjamin Weiss 0005, Walter Donner, Jeffrey T. Hancock
CHI1
2010 "on my way": deceptive texting and interpersonal awareness narratives
abstract
Managing one's availability for interaction with others is an increasingly complex act, involving multiple media and the sharing of many types of information. In this paper we draw on a field study of 183 SMS users to introduce the idea of the "interpersonal awareness narrative" -- the coherent, plausible and sometimes deceptive stories that people tell each other about their availability and activities. We examine participants' use of deception in these accounts, and focus in particular on "butler lies," those lies told to enter or exit conversations or to arrange other interactions. We argue that participants use this type of deception in SMS strategically, drawing on the inherent ambiguities of SMS while maintaining plausible narratives.
Jeremy P. Birnholtz, Jamie Guillory, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Natalya N. Bazarova
CSCW2
2009 Butler lies: awareness, deception and design
abstract
Instant messaging (IM) is a common and popular way for co-workers, friends, and family to stay in touch, but its"always-on properties can sometimes lead people to feel overexposed or too readily available to others for conversation. This, in turn, may lead people to deceive others about their actual status or availability. In this paper, we introduce the notion of the "butler lie to describe lies that allow for polite initiation and termination of conversations. We present results from a field study of 50 IM users, in which participants rated each of their messages at the time of sending to indicate whether or not it was deceptive. About one tenth of all IM messages were rated as lies and, of these, about one fifth were butler lies. These results suggest that butler lies are an important social practice in IM, and that existing approaches to interpersonal awareness, which focus on accurate assessment of availability, may need to take deception and other social practices into account.
Jeffrey T. Hancock, Jeremy P. Birnholtz, Natalya N. Bazarova, Jamie Guillory, Josh Perlin, Barrett Amos
CHI4