K. Fujiwara, Quinten S. Bernhold, Norah E. Dunbar, Christopher D. Otmar, Mohemmad Hansia
{"title":"Comparing Manual and Automated Coding Methods of Nonverbal Synchrony","authors":"K. Fujiwara, Quinten S. Bernhold, Norah E. Dunbar, Christopher D. Otmar, Mohemmad Hansia","doi":"10.1080/19312458.2020.1846695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The manual coding of nonverbal cues by trained human coders, such as counting the occurrence of a specific behavior or subjective rating about a speaker, is still a major method in the study of nonverbal synchrony. However, its time-consuming nature has been a serious barrier to the development of the field and has made it difficult for new scholars to adopt the technique. Recent advances in automated coding techniques allow researchers to collect nonverbal behavioral data effectively and objectively, but it is unclear how comparable the manual and automated coding methods are. This study, therefore, directly compared both methods of coding in a face-to-face conversation experiment. In the manual coding, a software system C-BAS was employed to count the occurrence of synchrony in gesture, posture, nodding, and other cues. In the automated coding, a cross-correlation analysis and a cross-wavelet coherence analysis were separately performed for the participant’s movement data. The results showed that the manual and automated coding were moderately correlated, and yielded similar significant differences between experimental conditions of conversational involvement in the degree of synchrony. Further, synchrony measured via both coding techniques was significantly associated with post-conversation self-reports. The advantages and disadvantages of both techniques are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47552,"journal":{"name":"Communication Methods and Measures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19312458.2020.1846695","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Methods and Measures","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1846695","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15
Abstract
ABSTRACT The manual coding of nonverbal cues by trained human coders, such as counting the occurrence of a specific behavior or subjective rating about a speaker, is still a major method in the study of nonverbal synchrony. However, its time-consuming nature has been a serious barrier to the development of the field and has made it difficult for new scholars to adopt the technique. Recent advances in automated coding techniques allow researchers to collect nonverbal behavioral data effectively and objectively, but it is unclear how comparable the manual and automated coding methods are. This study, therefore, directly compared both methods of coding in a face-to-face conversation experiment. In the manual coding, a software system C-BAS was employed to count the occurrence of synchrony in gesture, posture, nodding, and other cues. In the automated coding, a cross-correlation analysis and a cross-wavelet coherence analysis were separately performed for the participant’s movement data. The results showed that the manual and automated coding were moderately correlated, and yielded similar significant differences between experimental conditions of conversational involvement in the degree of synchrony. Further, synchrony measured via both coding techniques was significantly associated with post-conversation self-reports. The advantages and disadvantages of both techniques are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Communication Methods and Measures aims to achieve several goals in the field of communication research. Firstly, it aims to bring attention to and showcase developments in both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies to communication scholars. This journal serves as a platform for researchers across the field to discuss and disseminate methodological tools and approaches.
Additionally, Communication Methods and Measures seeks to improve research design and analysis practices by offering suggestions for improvement. It aims to introduce new methods of measurement that are valuable to communication scientists or enhance existing methods. The journal encourages submissions that focus on methods for enhancing research design and theory testing, employing both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Furthermore, the journal is open to articles devoted to exploring the epistemological aspects relevant to communication research methodologies. It welcomes well-written manuscripts that demonstrate the use of methods and articles that highlight the advantages of lesser-known or newer methods over those traditionally used in communication.
In summary, Communication Methods and Measures strives to advance the field of communication research by showcasing and discussing innovative methodologies, improving research practices, and introducing new measurement methods.