The first instance of media selection that I engaged in over the weekend involved confronting a friend about his compulsive lying to his friends. He had been blatantly lying to us for the past two years about everything including the smallest of details that didn't even make a difference in real life such as what sport he played in high school. I chose e-mail as the online space to do my confrontation in for a variety of reasons. I wanted to choose my words very carefully since although he was a liar, I still considered him a good friend and didn't want to say anything that I would later regret. Also, since e-mail is asynchronous, he could take his time in properly answering so he wasn't put on the spot and embarrassed. Also e-mail allowed me and my friends to all combine our efforts into a very nonthreatening letter instead of having a four on one showdown that would have occurred had we confronted him face to face.
This media selection supports O'Sullivan's hypothesis one that states when the valence is negative, mediated interaction is preferred since the valence was negative and the locus was other in the aforementioned interaction, and a mediated context was preferred.
The second instance of media selection that I interacted in over the weekend occurred on Friday. A fellow co-worker texted me about helping her copy some things. When I later asked why she texted me instead of walking the 2 minutes it took to get to my office to ask me face to face or even calling me, she said that since she had been in a hurry, she didn't want to waste precious time over small talk. That was why she preferred communicating with me using something that allowed her to get her point across quickly and clearly.
This media selection actually supports the Media Richness theory. "Lauren" chose a leaner media to interact with me due the less equivocal nature of the task at hand. She didn't want to have to deal with the numerous cues that are involved with richer media such as the telephone and face to face interaction. She also wanted to be able to state exactly what she wanted and not engage in any other conversation (message personalization).
I was surprised at the fact that my two interactions supported both theories since I expected one to overshadow the other. When learning about the two theories, I honestly thought that the Media Richness Theory was not as prominent in our every day lives as O'Sullivan's was since O'Sullivan's theory corresponds with self-preservation (if the connotation of the message is negative, and about oneself, one tends to hide behind the idea of mediated interaction). Although I have been proven wrong as far as my experiences go, I hope I still might be right as to the rest of the class.
First Comment
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-telephone-and-facebook.html
Second Comment
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-weekend-chock-full-o-media-choices.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This was a very interesting post. At first, I questioned the effectiveness of the email medium for confronting your compulsive liar friend. But, using the medium to allow your friend to give a carefully constructed well-thought out response struck me as an acute plan, perfectly attuned to the strengths of the medium.
Confronting a liar face-to-face may allow you to pick up on their non-verbal deceptive tactics, it would also force your friend into curt, tense comments that would likely only reinforce your ill feelings. Using a mediator to cool a negative confrontation levels the field of play, so to speak. As you mention, this interaction definitely falls with the purview of O'Sullivan's theory.
Good Post! I was impressed that you actually considered how your friend might react when being confronted by friends in a face-to-face situation. I definitely think that this agrees with O'Sullivan's impression management model. You used a leaner medium to reduce equivocality and expressed a negative valence for another person. Using an asynchronous form of mediation was beneficial in both cases because it reduced the possible of a major confrontation (he could have become very defensive in a face-to-face situation and might not have the time to think about how to react) and it also allowed you to include input from your other friends.
I also agreed that your second example supported the Media Richness Theory. I found that your friend was looking to be efficient by using a text message for a less equivocal statement. I also found it interesting how we are almost offended if someone is close by and still chooses to text message. I think this example is a good explanation of the levels of richness in the Media Richness Theory. Well- written post. I like your examples!
This was a great post. I'm curious what you actually said to your friend because you had to be up front with him, but you couldn't just blatantly say we know you've been lying these past 2 years. That perhaps would have made it too confrontational. I definitely believe you chose the perfect medium though. Both parties could gather their thoughts on precisely what they wanted to say and the response is somewhat quick.
The second example was very good too. I agree that it supports Media Richness Theory. She wanted to be quick and to the point because of her time constraints. It was less equivocal and therefore did not necessarily need a rich medium.
First of all well done! I feel that the instances you have written about are perfect examples displaying the aspects of O'Sullivan's Model. I definately agree that the way you spoke with the compulsive liar was in line with what O'Sullivan's Theory postulates. In addition you gave an explanation for exactly why you chose such a medium. I find it very interesting that if we now pay attention alot of us actually act as these models predict.
In response to your second example I again question the shortness we seem to have with people these days. It seems to be a direct result of our ability converse without face-to-face interaction. This raises the question of where we will be in 10years. With internet commerce, e-mail, im's, cellphone (text messaging) are we heading to a place where we no longer interact in person?
Post a Comment