As the world adapted to life in the shadow of Covid-19, the medium through which human beings communicated underwent a drastic change. Due to the social distancing measures adopted by governments, activities which typically took place face-to-face swiftly transitioned into the virtual world, as expressed by the increasing popularity of video conferencing tools, such as Zoom and Google Meet. Although the Covid-19 pandemic has largely faded, e-meetings have become a widespread tool in all areas of human interaction, especially in the legal and business world. Today, participants in board meetings, client-bank discussions, consulting, and legal services have increasingly moved to exchange information in a technologically-mediated environment. For example, a coalition of law firms recently demanded the federal judiciary allow remote testimony; the NYC Department of Education decided to back a state law that allows fully remote meetings of education councils; and the Illinois Supreme Court dedicated an entire report to the consequences of remote appearances in courts, highlighting the benefits of virtual communications during and after the pandemic.
While society clearly stands to gain from the many advantages offered by video conferencing, the prominent role that the technology now plays in people’s lives raises a fundamental question: Do video conferences differ from face-to-face communication in terms of information flow and exchange?
The answer to this question has a significant effect on policy design. Among other things, policymakers face several key questions: are video conferences worse than face-to-face meetings in facilitating the exchange of information? How do people perceive the exchange in a video conference meeting? And is the effect homogenous or dependent on factors such as the age cohort?
In a recent paper, we report on a laboratory experiment that isolates the effect of the medium of communication (face-to-face vs. video conference) on the flow of information. In the experiment, we asked subjects to solve a simple riddle but gave them asymmetric clues – such that only subjects who exchanged information could solve the riddle correctly. We then randomly divided them into two groups: one in which communication could be made face-to-face and another in which communication could be made via a video conference. In order to improve our understanding of the underlying processes, we also included some additional features: subjects could signal their willingness to share information by investing money and were also asked about their beliefs and perceptions.
The experiment yielded several findings, but the most important one is a gap between objective performance in the task and subjective perceptions. Specifically, while there were no actual differences in performance between subjects who communicated face-to-face and subjects who communicated via a videoconference, the medium affected perceptions: subjects who met in person were more prone to feeling that they gave useful information to their counterpart, compared to subjects who met via videoconference. In other words, while both mediums led to the same objective results, the perception among subjects differed significantly depending on the medium of communication
In our paper, we point at two key implications of this finding. First, it suggests that legal actors (lawyers, judges, policymakers, shareholders, etc.) may not need to be too concerned about the loss of information in videoconferencing, at least not in those that include two-strangers-focused communication, such as in our experiment. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it may explain why policymakers may resist virtual communication: even if no information is actually lost, policymakers may subjectively (and incorrectly) fear that such a loss would occur.
To avoid misunderstandings, our experiment zooms in on a very specific question – how information flows in a brief focused task – and we do not claim to provide a definite answer as to which form of communication is preferable. We simply argue that any cost-benefit analysis must rely on clear evidence, and our experiment sheds light on a key aspect that is starkly underexplored. Our hope is that policy makers will embrace a data-driven approach, such as the one taken in our study, so that the regulation framework for communications would be better suited and adapted to reality.
This post comes to us from Professor Roee Sarel from the Institute of Law and Economics, University of Hamburg, and Dr. Hadar Jabotinsky from the Hadar Jabotinsky Center for Interdisciplinary Research of Financial Markets, Crises and Technology and Zefat Academic College Law School. It is based on their recent paper (available here) and forthcoming at the Connecticut Law Review.
