Zoom background choices shape first impressions

During lockdown, many of us got used to working at home — and for many of us, part of that was using virtual backgrounds to avoid our colleagues seeing mess, pets, or the contents of our bedrooms. In many ways, this allowed us to control the vibe of meetings: a virtual birthday party for a colleague might call for a different background to a serious job interview, and we would be unlikely to select the same one for each. 

In their recent paper published in PLOS ONE, a Durham University team took a look at what first impressions our choice of Zoom background can confer. Far from being just a fun, neutral addition to a call, the team found that video backgrounds can have a sizeable impact on how meeting participants were perceived, with some lending an extra air of trustworthiness and competence. This potentially affects the way people engage with others online, particularly in the context of work. 

For this study, 167 adults were recruited from an online research platform. Participants were shown one of six different backgrounds: a home, a blurred home, a bookcase, house plants, a blank wall, and a novelty image. In front of each of each backgrounds, participants saw either a woman or a man, with either a happy or sad face. They then rated the individuals based on how trustworthy and competent they seemed. Participants saw every combination of these variables — 72 in total.

There was a lot of variation in how trustworthy participants found individuals based on backgrounds. Those with home backgrounds and novelty backgrounds were seen as significantly less trustworthy than those with backgrounds of plants, a bookcase, a blurred home, or a blank wall. However, there was no significant difference between the highest rating backgrounds, plants and a bookcase. Facial expression also mattered when it came to trustworthiness: happy faces were seen as significantly more trustworthy than neutral faces. Women were also rated as more trustworthy than men across all backgrounds.

In terms of competence, backgrounds also mattered. Again, bookcases, plants, and blank walls were the backgrounds that led participants to rate individuals as most competent. Blurred backgrounds, home backgrounds, and novelty backgrounds had the lowest competency ratings. And, as with trustworthiness, happy faces were seen as more competent than neutral faces and men more competent than women. 

Novelty backgrounds reduced ratings of competence and trustworthiness. While this in itself might not be surprising, as to many they may not seem particularly professional, the effect of simulated home backgrounds may be more surprising. The team suggests that a simulated home background may imply that the individual is being secretive about their home space, thus "inducing perceptions of dishonesty." In terms of facial expressions, the findings bolster previous research that suggests smiling is a sign of "self-confidence, high-self-esteem, and success... which typically result from high agency and competence."

The team identify one significant limitation to their work: the faces chosen for the study were not pre-screened on attractiveness. This, they suggest, could explain why women were judged as more competent than men; previous research has suggested that attractiveness can bolster a sense of competency. This could be looked at in future research, as well as cultural factors that could impact our judgements. 

There was also no specific context given as to why the individuals shown in the stimuli were on Zoom. Since different backgrounds are appropriate for different settings, it would be interesting to see whether backgrounds are judged differently in work, personal, or even online dating contexts. 

Despite its limitations, this research has clear (and easily implemented) implications. If you are attending a job interview, holding an important meeting, or hoping to impress your boss, avoid novelty backgrounds – and keep smiling. 

Read the paper in full: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.029144