While video conferencing has long ben heralded as a perfect substitution for actually being in the meting, a recent study suggestions that it might not be as effective as actually being there. Video conferencing allows a presenter to present to multiple locations at a time, allowing reduced travel for the presenter and the participants, while saving time and money.

The study suggests that while video conferencing can be an effective communication tool, it distorts the interaction in small but important ways. The study found that while participants in a regular conference were likely to base their judgment of the presentation on the arguments and the materials, participants of the video conferences were more likely to judge the presentation on the charisma of the presenter.

The research was conducted by Carlos Ferran at Pennsylvania State University and Stephanie Watts at Boston University where they quizzed 44 medical professionals who took part in early morning medical seminars via business-quality video conferencing, and 99 peers who were in the room with the physical presenters. The subjects were asked about how likely they would be to refer a patient to the speaker at the seminar, and how likable they felt he or she was, among other things. The videoconference participants were more likely to report that it was hard to follow what the speaker was saying, and reported higher levels of stress during the seminars.

In their study published in the September issue of the journal Management Science, the researchers hypothesize that a videoconference is mentally more challenging than a face-to-face meeting. That leaves less brainpower left over to process the content of the presentation. Cues we use in conversation, such as looking at people’s gazes to figure out to whom they are talking, are harder to follow in a videoconference.