This is from my Communication and Technology class's blog. The subject of this posting is an issue I brought up in class the other night. In this post I'm only the author of the second comment.
I Think » Why Choose a Lesser Medium?: "ncategorized at 1:50 pm by Cory W. Palm
In their interaction last night, Scott brought up an interesting point while talking to Dr. Walther, concerning instances where we choose to communicate with a lesser technology despite better options, all things being equal. I know I have done this on numerous occasions, in both professional settings and in personal settings, and I’m sure I’m not alone.
There are several reasons for my doing this with each situation being a bit different. If I am seeking to simply be heard without immediate feedback, an email is better than a phone call. Perhaps I wish to measure my words better, again done more effectively through text rather than telephone. This is particularly helpful if dealing with a situation where the rules of interaction may define what can and can’t be said (when speaking to a subordinate or to someone you don’t want to anger).
I definitely think this is an interesting are for further research, especially given the fact that I know it exists on a personal level. I’d be interested in other thoughts on the matter and perhaps expanding this topic a bit more.
Permalink
2 Comments »
1.
Sorin Adam Matei said,
March 2, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Strategic use of communication channels has been an intriguing research issue for a long time and media richness theory was invented to answer some of the challenges created by it. However, the theory is in need of some reworking, because its main tenet is that people will always use the most appropriate channel for the task. Defining “appropriate” can be, as we know, problematic. What is appropriate in one situation, might not be in another, so there is no linear association of specific choices and goals with specific media. How do we account for the human need to hide and manipulate their environments via mediated communication? This is an issue we are still pondering on.
2.
#
Scott Sanders said,
March 3, 2006 at 1:44 am
I’ve been doing some thinking about this issue and I think I’ve come up with a way to reconcile it with the theory of electronic propinquity. The sixth major proposition of propinquity reads:
The smaller the number of choices of channels, the more propinquity.
I started out with the assumption that people would want to use the technology to increase propinquity. What I’ve come realize is that it’s likely that they are using leaner channels to accomplish the opposite. Rather than use it to increase propinquity they may be doing it to distance themselves or to avoid interaction.
O’Sullivan (2000) found when conducting research for his mediated impression management model that individuals preferred to use leaner mediated channels when their preferred identities were being threatened. For example, if one conceives of oneself as a good person but you are going to tell your girl friend that you cheated on her you are more likely to use a mediated channel than if you have a positive self-disclosure. You seek to decrease propinquity and increase ambiguity as a way of managing face. In contrast, a positive self-disclosure, such as telling your girl friend you were promoted at work, would be more likely to be told in a richer medium or preferably face-to-face. This is because you would be available to receive the positive feedback associated with the disclosure.
In conclusion, I think that the sixth proposition may hold true, it’s simply a matter of what people are trying to accomplish with the medium. People choose the most “appropriate” medium for their purposes with less consideration given to their partner’s desire for information than to their own need to regulate face. Cell phones have the potential to increase propinquity by providing access to one another 24/7, but the I think that people sometimes may be using features such as SMS, caller ID, and voice mail to regulate their relationships in a way that decreases propinquity…kind of dystopian isn’t it?
I’d appreciate it if we could keep this thread going because I’d really like feedback from the class.
O’Sullivan, P. B. (2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management
functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication
Research, 26(3), 403-431.
I Think » Why Choose a Lesser Medium?: "ncategorized at 1:50 pm by Cory W. Palm
In their interaction last night, Scott brought up an interesting point while talking to Dr. Walther, concerning instances where we choose to communicate with a lesser technology despite better options, all things being equal. I know I have done this on numerous occasions, in both professional settings and in personal settings, and I’m sure I’m not alone.
There are several reasons for my doing this with each situation being a bit different. If I am seeking to simply be heard without immediate feedback, an email is better than a phone call. Perhaps I wish to measure my words better, again done more effectively through text rather than telephone. This is particularly helpful if dealing with a situation where the rules of interaction may define what can and can’t be said (when speaking to a subordinate or to someone you don’t want to anger).
I definitely think this is an interesting are for further research, especially given the fact that I know it exists on a personal level. I’d be interested in other thoughts on the matter and perhaps expanding this topic a bit more.
Permalink
2 Comments »
1.
Sorin Adam Matei said,
March 2, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Strategic use of communication channels has been an intriguing research issue for a long time and media richness theory was invented to answer some of the challenges created by it. However, the theory is in need of some reworking, because its main tenet is that people will always use the most appropriate channel for the task. Defining “appropriate” can be, as we know, problematic. What is appropriate in one situation, might not be in another, so there is no linear association of specific choices and goals with specific media. How do we account for the human need to hide and manipulate their environments via mediated communication? This is an issue we are still pondering on.
2.
#
Scott Sanders said,
March 3, 2006 at 1:44 am
I’ve been doing some thinking about this issue and I think I’ve come up with a way to reconcile it with the theory of electronic propinquity. The sixth major proposition of propinquity reads:
The smaller the number of choices of channels, the more propinquity.
I started out with the assumption that people would want to use the technology to increase propinquity. What I’ve come realize is that it’s likely that they are using leaner channels to accomplish the opposite. Rather than use it to increase propinquity they may be doing it to distance themselves or to avoid interaction.
O’Sullivan (2000) found when conducting research for his mediated impression management model that individuals preferred to use leaner mediated channels when their preferred identities were being threatened. For example, if one conceives of oneself as a good person but you are going to tell your girl friend that you cheated on her you are more likely to use a mediated channel than if you have a positive self-disclosure. You seek to decrease propinquity and increase ambiguity as a way of managing face. In contrast, a positive self-disclosure, such as telling your girl friend you were promoted at work, would be more likely to be told in a richer medium or preferably face-to-face. This is because you would be available to receive the positive feedback associated with the disclosure.
In conclusion, I think that the sixth proposition may hold true, it’s simply a matter of what people are trying to accomplish with the medium. People choose the most “appropriate” medium for their purposes with less consideration given to their partner’s desire for information than to their own need to regulate face. Cell phones have the potential to increase propinquity by providing access to one another 24/7, but the I think that people sometimes may be using features such as SMS, caller ID, and voice mail to regulate their relationships in a way that decreases propinquity…kind of dystopian isn’t it?
I’d appreciate it if we could keep this thread going because I’d really like feedback from the class.
O’Sullivan, P. B. (2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management
functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication
Research, 26(3), 403-431.
