That’s Not a Beer in my Pocket, Dad…I’m Just Really Happy to See You…?

I have a very unique relationship with deception. If you are looking for evidence of this—which I am sure you all are because I am just such an interesting individual—ask any female I have ever had any “relationship” with. Now you may be saying to yourself, “O brother, not another lying man, what a pig!” However, you would be dead wrong because, on the contrary, I am brutally honest—a trait which gets me in just as much trouble as lying—trust me! I wasn’t always doomed to a permanent residence in every female’s “doghouse” due to my brutal honesty. Conversely, when I was a young little Mathew, I was a deception fiend. I lied about everything from saying it was my brother who urinated in the tire swing to saying it was my brother who urinated on the patio furniture—I guess I had a fascination with urinating on things but evading blame. All the lying finally caught up to me and my guilty conscience, creating the honest man writing this blog for you today. My brutal honesty does not go over well with the ladies, but it does provide for wonderfully applicable stories concerning communication theory, deception, and media selection. So here goes…
One faithful high school night, I felt like “balling out”—like the youth these days call it—and planned on bringing some brewskies for my boys. Not really putting much thought into the plan, I just tried to stroll out the front door with my tense grin and my incredibly unsuspicious giant plastic bag clanging and jangling full of beer. As you could imagine, I didn’t get very far before my father, the much honored Bruce Lloyd Birnbaum, asked, “Uh…..Whatcha got there Matt?” Immense beads of sweat swelled up on my brow and began falling to the ground like hundreds of miniature, moist, bombs. Excuses and ideas began flying through my extremely nervous teenage mind like: Just say they are Snapple bottles and run for it; you can take this old man! As my mouth began to move in accordance with my voice box to say this wonderfully crafted lie, there must have been some malfunction within my brain. What came out of my mouth sounded more like, “It’s…BEER!” To make a long story short, I was NOT the beer supplier that faithful high school night. My inability to effectively deceive my father can be attributed to the form of media involved in the interaction. In accordance to O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model (IMM), I would have preferred to select a leaner medium to increase ambiguity opposed to a richer medium. In my situation, the locust—self—and the valence—negative because of underage drinking—would, according to the hypothesized interaction effect, support my preference of a more mediated channel of communication. Perhaps, if I was able to interact with my father’s inquiry of the contents of my “beer bag” through a leaner, more mediated channel of communication, I would have made it successfully to my friend’s house, with the “goods.” Luckily for my dad, I had not taken this class yet or known about O’Sullivan’s IMM, so the score board reads: DAD: 1, Matt and COMM 245: ZERO!
Another instance where media selection can be beautifully instrumental is…the Booty Call, yes, I said it. I don’t care who wants to admit it or not, many of us have been on both the initiating and receiving end of the beloved booty call. Based on personal experience, I would say that the preferred method of communication concerning booty calls are text messages opposed to richer mediums such as FtF or phone calls. This media selection situation epitomizes the Media Richness Theory (MRT) which asserts that there should be an optimal match between the equivocality of the communication task and the richness of the medium. Frankly put, the less equivocal the message, the leaner the medium could be. What intended message could be less equivocal than, “Get over here, I want to Kiss you.” Since the communication tasks related to booty calls are very simple and uncomplicated, most people choose the lean medium of text messaging to carry out the interaction. If you don’t believe me or agree, the next time you are lonely on a late weekend night, try walking to your “friend’s” door and asking face to face, “Want to be used?”

Assignment#3 - effective equivocality II

I am sorry. I was confused with terms. When I said Media Richness Theory, actually I meant CFO. And when I wrote O'Sullivan's Model, I meant Media Richness Theory. I am sorry again for causing confusion.

3: Media Selection

In applying for a campus job, I was required to provide at least one campus or local reference, but as a new transfer student I have not yet built a strong enough rapport with any of my professors or TAs to offer their names. I felt like the best true reference I could offer of someone who could attest to my personality and work ethic was one from a girl in a class with whom I am working on a group project. To ask her permission for her reference, I gave her a call and left a voicemail figuring calling was most appropriate. I wanted her to understand the sincerity of my request and given our recent acquaintance I thought she would best understand if I used a “rich channel.” In response, she text me back and sent me a follow up e-mail to ensure I received her text. In her text, she apologized for not calling, explaining that she was in the library but that she was flattered by my consideration and to go ahead and use her name. I chose to respond to her text message in the interest of time (for her and my sake), saying, “Ur so great! Thank u! I’ll see u wed.” I knew that if I called my classmate back it would negatively affect her impression of me because I would be demonstrating a lack of consideration of her not wanting to talk while in the library which supports O’Sullivan’s model.


The second instance of media selection came this weekend in reinitiating contact with a recent ex-boyfriend. My goal in the communication was to apologize for the way things ended, to let him know that I was no longer upset over the whole ordeal, and to ask him to mail me some of my things. Knowing that he would want to talk and that I was not ready, I sent him an email figuring that a text message would be more likely to lead to a phone call because of its limited ability to convey the emotional consideration I knew I needed to express.

Both of these choices of media support O’Sullivan’s model and the Media Richness Theory. In both cases I wanted to manage my impression with each person as well as use channel that offered the appropriate dialectic. In the case of my ex-boyfriend, I wanted to create a “buffer” between the two of us to convey my comfort level, but I also wanted to make sure that I said what I needed to say without any interference or confusion. As for my classmate, I followed her lead on using the lean medium to express my understanding of her needs (time and environment) and convey my goals. I also wanted to ensure that I continued to present myself to her in a positive light.

Assignment 3 - Whale flip flops

For this assignment, I decided to pretend I'm somebody else online in two different places - so I can compare how different audiences react to my fakery.  

The online persona I decided to become was a whale biologist (Seinfeld...) and I chose two places for this experiment.  The first was a social forum on a video game site www.gamefaqs.com which is known for housing 10-15 year olds arguing about unimaginable things.  The forums are clean and moderated though, so the discussion generally stays on topic.  The second was the Professionals, 30's ICQ chat room which is not moderated.  I spent about an hour in each place, trying to strike up conversations or getting into debates and then throwing in the fact that I study whale biology.

The conclusion of this experiment was rather striking for me, though I'm not sure how it fits with the theories we've been talking about in class.  Basically, I was able to fake it much easier with the 30's than the teenagers.  The way I went about it was trying to sound as professional and "smart" as possible, though not to the point of being pretentious.  My grammar was always correct, I wrote in full sentences (omg!) and provided actual facts (from Wiki and other sources) about whales when tested by others.

This went over perfectly in the 30's chat room - people believed me and I stroke up chats about professional careers on several occasions.  The fact that everyone there was mature and not extremely cynical helped.  As people asked me questions about my "career" I started getting a feel of what kind of response they wanted to hear and I gave that to them which worked well.

On the other hand, the forum experience was terrible.  I tried to do the same thing and basically all the 12 year olds laughed at me.  Nobody bothered to ask me questions or strike up a conversation with me - instantly there was nothing but disbelief.  I tried to prove the existence of my fake career to them but the thread degenerated into a flame war.  At the end I was angry enough (in character of course) that I started being mean to them, telling them that they will never become whale biologists and they should respect their elders.  Though it sounded less cheesy when I said it...

Conclusions?  You can be one person, but present several actual selves when surrounded by different media formats and a different audience.  In my experience, the format has little to do with it (at least for chat vs. forums) while the age and mind set of the audience plays a huge role in how you act out the part.

#3 - Love and Chores

I believe that O'Sullivan's theory and Media Richness theory can be applied in different circumstances. Take, for example, these two contrasting examples.

My boyfriend and I are beginning a long distance relationship after dating for three years. We will have to have a long distance relationship for about two years before it is even possible that we would be able to be together again long term. Thus, it is important to both of us that we stay in contact with each other as much as possible so we can stay involved with each others' lives. So, we both decided to get web cams and web cam software so that we can video chat. It has ended up working extremely well and we have video chatted almost every night. I would say that this is explained by media richness theory because I don't want to be ambiguous in my feelings toward him. Sometimes when we send email I dont know whether he is happy or sad. I think that in a long distance relationship it is especially important to know exactly how the other person is feeling in order to keep the relationship strong. Thus, we made sure we had the richest form of media communication available - video chatting. And I would say that it has come through extremely well.


My second experiece is best deifined by the Osullivan impression management model. I am the chores manager of my house of 11 girls. My job is to tell people what their chore of the week is and ensure that they do it. Sometimes there is a girl who doesn't do their chore. Then, I have to scold them and tell them to get on it and do it. I really hate doing that because I don't like to feel like I am accusing others. I especially hate doing it face to face because I feel vulnerable and usually back down. So, I usually pick email or facebook wall messages. This is supported by the Osullivan theory because my valence is on negative and my locus is toward others. Thus, I am likely to choose a cmc form of communication, which I did.

3 He did WHAT to WHOM????

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

3 Assigment Express yourself, you get a friend

Sorry, i forgot to add this title to my article below

Assignment#3 - effective equivocality

In lecture on last Thursday, there was one statement Professor Hancock said that struck me: 'equivocation and deception are everyday activities strategies.' In general, somebody making a remark that you are equivocal and deceptive is considered to be one of negative impressions and something that you would try to avoid. It sounded ironic that something you avoid is actually being used and we have been taking advantage of it. My two different instances of media selection showed why and how these everyday activities strategies took place.
First I want to talk about sending a message in Facebook. Last year, my friends and I were planning a surprise birthday party for my other friend. In my freshman year, it was convenient to meet people and to talk to them since we all were living in the same place. But, when we became sophomore, there were two groups of people: one in West Campus and one in Collegetown. Since most of us started taking major-related classes. It was not easy to see people unless you have the same major. So, when we were trying to come up with a plan, we decided to use messages in Facebook. Before, we used to write on the wall, but in this case, planning had to be private and deceptive. Planning was asynchronous. If someone proposed idea, others responded in group reply. We were also able to go back and check what we had said. Planning went well and the surprise party was successful. This example disproves Media Rich Theory because if our top concern were efficiency that it should be clear and easy to access for everyone, the surprise party would have not been successful. Therefore, equivocality and deception are not always negative. It's a characteristic of the situation which determines which feature is positive or negative.
Second instance of media selection is the newcomer in an online community. It is also related to impression formation. If someone is new to an online community, it takes time for this person to be actively involved in the community. During this period, one does not reveal about him too much and tries to observe how other people in this community behave. The reason why is that one does not know what type of behavior and characteristics are welcomed and liked in this particular community, yet. It is risky to be clear and as efficient as possible in revealing his personality. This situation puts restrictions, so one tends to be more equivocal and efficiency does not become his first priority in order not to make negative impressions. However, after one comprehends people's value in the community, efficiency would become one of his top concerns to communicate effectively with others. This instance shows that it depends on the type of situation one is in whether O'Sullivan's model or Media Richness Theory can be supported. At first, it supported O'Sullivan's model, since equivocality is used as a strategy in self-presentation. But, later on, after familiarity formed, people tend to use more rich media in order to be less equivocal.

My best friend and I always chat through internet. We sometimes use MSN, sometimes use QQ. We always talk with headphones and cameras, especially when we meet something good. It seems when we are talking, we both become happier and happier, and we always can find more to talk until it is too late. But when something bad happens, we may choose to type the words. When typing the words, we are quiet and staring at the screen with low spirit. It seems true what O'Sullivin says is ture. When we are in good mood, we more like to talk out. But when in bad mood, we wish others can understand and don't want to say a word. When we want to critisize someone, we may choose not to say it in a face to face way in order not to hurt his/her self-respect. And nearly everyperson is not as happy to praise others as to praise ourselves. I think this is totally psychology thing, and the way we think decides the social computing tools we will use.
I want to take an example in an inverse way. My best friend was my "enemy" before we became good friends. We did't like the ways every one talked and worked. And we always say something bad of each other behind the back. And others in the school knew we two didn't get on well with each other. One day, a little thing lead this conflict to an extrme that we two both said some really bad words and nearly a fight was going to happen. Then the teacher came and took us two to the office. At first, we two didn't stop quarrel, then the teacher said a lot a lot, and we both were shamed and finally cried, Things happened next was we two apologized to each other, although a little embarrassed. The next was we became best friends after that, sueprising everyone. We are still best friends now, and sometimes when we talk this little history, we feel we are childish but we cherish this little history. O'Sullivin says when the "self, negative" happenes, we are mostly like to choose intermedia communication. It illustrate that it is very hard for we to choose the "rich channels" to communicate. We confessed to each other, which was a relly difficult thing for us to do, the result is we becoming best friends. We showed truly self to each other and what we gained was trust. I think this true story proves the O'Sullivins points in an inverse way.

Money in the Bank - 3

Like the majority of people these days I do the majority of my banking online. Several days ago I saw an erroneous bank charge on my online statement so I decided to contact customer support. Lucky for me, my bank gives me a whopping three different ways to let them know they screwed up. I have my choice of telephone, live chat via their website, or email. At the time, I did not consciously think about any Impression Management models or Media Richness Theories as Professor Hancock would have hoped. Pretty much all that was on my mind was telling some poor customer service rep that they should waive my 8 dollar bank fee and I would have his/her first born if they levied such a surcharge again. In more scientific terms the Locus was Other and the Valence was Positive. O’Sullivan forgot to include people (like me) who enjoy acting the bratty, unsatisfied customer role where accusing others mistakes is a positive. However, I was heavily leaning toward the clarity dialectic as I wanted to be able to explain my problem fully and vent my stress. With the three avenues of communication given to me, email was immediately nixed because I wanted the situation resolved within the next few minutes and not the next few weeks; I also had no idea to what department my email would go. I knew that IM was the most likely to have an operator at any given time, however I had to go through the hassle of communicating my problem to some outsourced third tier rep but would most likely be able to receive clear (prewritten) replies. Telephone, the channel with the least buffer, would allow me to explain myself with the most clarity and the right tone, however, I would have to decode bad English, deal with hold times and social overhead. In the end I chose telephone, which supports O’Sullivan that clarity was the determining factor in choice of medium.

To contrast to this situation a few weeks ago my bank locked me out of their website. Why? I wasn’t sure but probably because some previous time I had typed my password wrong several dozen times in a row. I messed up. In O’Sullivan’s model this would fall strictly under the Self and Negative categories. Living by the motto “Never Apologize”, I actually chose to use email as the method for telling my bank that my problem was now their problem. This was done by being as ambiguously as possible through email with me asking for them to unlock my account and reset my password while never fully admitting that I had directly caused the error (I wasn’t fooling anybody BTW). This example definitely supports O’Sullivan’s hypothesis of a negative self focused interaction preferring computer mediated communication as I was able to maximize results (access my bank account) and minimize costs (keep my dignity…somewhat).

Embracing Excitement and Avoiding Anger (Assigment 3)

On Friday, I decided to iChat with one of my best friends from Syracuse in order to tell her that some of my friends and I were going to make a trip the following week to visit her. I could have just as easily called or instant messaged her via AOL Instant Messenger, but I decided to go with the most personal form of Computer Mediated Communication. I chose this form of internet because I thought that she would be thrilled to hear that we were coming to visit her. I felt we could share our excitement via visual cues as well as verbal cues with iChat. I chose iChat because I feel most connected to her when I see her face. Last year, when my friends and I went away to college for the first time, iChat really helped us all remain close. Seeing each others’ faces was much more enjoyable and personal than just a plain instant message. Therefore, I felt in this situation that iChat was most beneficial.

On the other side of the spectrum, I decided to instant message my mom today to inform her of some less pleasant news. I had to tell her that something was wrong with my Cornell registration, and that she would have to pay a late fee if it wasn’t sorted out by Thursday. When I came back from class today, I noticed that she was online. I decided to instant message her with the news. I chose to do this because if I called her, I would have had to deal with her condescending tone of voice. I didn’t want to iChat with her for similar reasons. I also knew that she was a slow typist, so she would probably get frustrated early in the conversation and give up trying to have a longer conversation with me. With the relatively bad news I had to deliver to my mom, my expectations that a negative reaction would occur led me to chose a less personal, instant message interaction.

My two choices of media selection were in line with O’Sullivan’s model. I chose to iChat with my friend because I felt that she would react positively to the good news I was going to deliver. In addition, I felt very confident that she would react in this way; I did not feel that my expectations were threatened. Therefore, I chose the most personal form of media I had at my disposal. My interaction with my mother is in line with O’Sullivan’s model as well. I had to deliver bad news, so I knew her reaction would not be positive. By calling her or iChatting with her, I would have had to deal with her yelling at me and/or giving me her “evil eye”, which is never a good thing for me or my siblings. I expected a negative reaction, so I selected my media source carefully. I chose to instant message her because I would not have to deal with the visual and verbal cues that a phone call or iChat would have provided.

Assignment #3 - Finding A Happy Medium

With so many ways available to communicate with people, is there truly one method that is better than the rest in a given situation? I often find myself torn, doubting myself as to which is the best and most efficient medium to use to communicate with others. O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model really resonated in my mind and got me thinking about what types of media I have used in the past. At first, it was hard for me to believe something so systematic in figuring out what types of media a person will use, but after reflecting on some recent events that I have had to deal with, I realized the accuracy to which the Impression Management Model truly predicts the type of media a person will use. I was interested to see if the locus and valence was truly indicative of the type of media a person will opt to use.

I recently moved into an apartment with four other girls, all of whom were close friends of mine, but I was hit with the harsh reality that being friends with a person doesn’t necessarily make them the best people to live with. After a few unspoken skirmishes between the five of us, there was definitely tension in our apartment that everyone tried to pretend was not there (think huge elephant in the middle of a room that everyone refused to acknowledge). There were numerous issues that needed to be dealt with; people being disrespectful, irresponsible, immature and thoughtless. However, no one seemed to know what the best method of dealing with the situation was, no one wanted to be the initiator and no one wanted to be the one blamed. Instead of confronting one another in person, we decided to deal with our problems through email. By relying on this leaner medium, we were able to articulate our feelings without the worry that we would be attacked while at the same time, remain a bit equivocal. This behavior falls right in line with O’Sullivans hypothesis that when ‘accusing’ (negative valence and other locus) one another we opt to use a mediated channel helps to diffuse some of this anger. In addition, by being able to thoughtfully and tactfully compose an e-mail, it enabled us to confront the issue without letting our emotions get entirely out of hand. People can respond on their own time, when they are ready to deal with the issue and eventually things will get worked out. Our decision to confront our problems using a mediated channel to communicate is supported with O’Sullivan’s theory, which suggests that the use of an asynchronous, leaner channel enables a person to be able to ‘manage interactions competently’.

Although I found it to be a bit annoying at first, the Facebook news feed has become my crutch when it comes keeping myself in the know regarding what is going on in my friends’ lives. After logging on to Facebook tonight, I found it fascinating to truly observe how much information is released about a person on this one channel, both good and bad. Everything on the news feed for the most part involves a locus of self, the person is revealing something new to the world of Facebook. When it comes to categorizing the valence however, the concept of negative and positive are not so black and white. In accordance with O’Sullivan’s theory, the valence of this news feed update should focus more on the negative (confess and accuse categories), since people are more inclined to use a mediated channel for a negative valence however, this is not the case; The positive valence (boost and praise) are just as likely to be revealed. A person is just as likely to reveal that they are ‘in a relationship with ___’ as they are to reveal in this mediated interaction that they are ‘ no longer in a relationship with___’. Although this doesn’t entirely disprove O’Sullivan’s model, it demonstrates that it does not hold true in all instances, and that there are definitely some gray areas that are not addressed by the model.

Assignment 3 - When He Was A Girl

P1.

Performing both a gender and age swap, I entered an IRC (Internet Relay Chat) as a 20-year-old girl. The IRC was as the synchronous vestige to a music site. IRCs are appreciably the same as chat-rooms: they may be synchronous and, though meant for a group, allow for personal messaging. As a psychological space, the chat-room format is lean enough for me to self-present based on a limited, completely non-verbal set of tactics.

I chose to color my font light blue, which I felt revealed to my chat partner (identified as a male) a typically feminine concern (i.e., styling font to reflect emotion). I tended to overuse exclamation points and use emoticons, things that I, however conscious I am of the stereotype, associate with female chatters. I tried to be warmer, as with the use of emoticons, and avoided heavy criticism of people’s opinions. I also used the space, a new music discussion room, as a gender-cue or “Social Association” (one of the five “Tactics”): my favorite new band was St. Vincent, a brash, but emotional female (Bask in Reflected Glory, one might interpret). As for my age, I felt it would only temper my vocabulary and diction, but that it would not alter my enthusiasm through emoticons and punctuation. Obviously, the space limited my ability to reflect age, and gender, through tonal and oratorical cues. Even adults sometimes use emoticons and color their lettering, so specifying age with such cues is not as easy in a IRC space.

P2.

After a conflict--specifically, verbal--one might be careful on choosing the next media for communication. I, to deflect further conflict, would probably choose a leaner channel, one with less "Media Richness," in order to limit emotional tones or adopt a neutral tone to let each party remove themselves from the polarity of the conflict. O’Sullivan says that in potentially threatening situations, mediated interactions are typically chosen. I agree, as the mediator allows for a “buffer effect.” In this case, the Media Richness theory does not have the breadth to include the buffer effect idea, because of its emphasis on efficiency. In this sense, the Media Richness theory is disproved, but it does account for equivocation, which O’Sullivan’s theory also supports as an element of channel selection.

If I was meeting a potential employee, the Media Richness Theory would prove handy. In order to avoid equivocation, I would choose the richest medium – face-to-face. According to O’Sullivan’s hypothesis, in this type of self-locus situation, where the valence was meant to be positive, a FtF, non-mediated interaction would most likely best serve the situation. The theories support each other on these grounds. I would definitely choose a medium that would allow me to not only review the potential employee’s resume, but to get a sense of his social skills. With a lean medium, I would not be able to test the employee in a truly synchronous environment, nor read his tone of voice (nervous, angry, etc.).

3 My life as a Script Kiddie

For the first time in years, I chatted through IRC. Amazingly the last time I used it, I was about 14. Honestly with all of the IM clients available now IRC just seems dated. But technical issues aside, for this assignment I decided to go back in time. I basically picked up right where I had left off. My new identity: the 14 year old me.

That identity shouldn't be all that difficult to pull off (admittedly, it's the identity I often end up regressing to on weekends). However, it was the social context that made my identity an interesting choice. The IRC channel I joined was focused around computer hacking.

Anyone who has ever come across a hacker chatroom, thread, or website knows that the people who frequent these social spaces are... well a bit protective- if not outright aggressive towards people they consider "outsiders."

To tell the truth, my "fake" identity never even got off the ground. As I entered the room with 4 other chatters in it, I was immediately asked, "asl?". My response of, "14 M pittsburgh" made the others in the room laugh. For the next ten minutes I was drilled left and right with technical questions. Most of which, I (let alone the 14 year old me) didn't know the answer to. I was accused of being a script kiddie, and told that I was giving hacking a bad name. One chatter told me, "Real hackers are artists... you're the kid who grafittis the word SHIT on the side of a portajohn."

I never really got a chance to manage my impression, because it was already managed for me. I don't think there was anything I could have said to convince the other chatters that I wasn't a digital vandal. Their minds were made up, and no amount of "impression management" would have swayed them.

After about ten minutes of insults, the 4 other chatters started to leet speak, and refused to chat in English until I left the room. The experience was very frustrating. The whole time I couldn't help but think I would have gotten a significantly different reception had I explained I was 21 year old Cornell Engineer. While the impression management aspect of the assignment didn't really take off, I definitely FELT like a 14 year old who wanted to tag along with the big kids.

It was definitely interesting to see how far our minds can go with just those three little letters... "ASL?"

Assignment 3- As Facebook would say, "It's Complicated"

Upon receiving this assignment last week, my original plan was to go into a chat room and pretend to be an 80 year old man or something of the sort. It sounded like it might be fun and after reading so much about it, I was eager to try out some digital deception of my own. However, ongoing relationship drama between two of my friends, Katie and Dan, lent itself perfectly to a discussion of O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model. The two flirted all summer and have been stuck in a relationship of indeterminate status ever since we got back to school.

On Saturday night, Katie got fed up with all of the uncertainty and mixed signals and texted Dan to tell him so, saying, “I don’t want to do this anymore.” She went on in a subsequent text message to tell him how upset she was, to question whether or not she and Dan were really just friends, and to say that she had rebuffed the advances of another man at a party, in part because of the ambiguous state of her relationship with Dan. I think Katie’s choice of a lean medium to convey her message represents an effort on her part to actively manage the impression she was creating. Her choice is not consistent with the predictions of Media Richness Theory. The equivocal nature of her task, conveying to Dan her feelings for him and her desire to get the status of their relationship clarified, could undoubtedly have been accomplished more efficiently in a rich medium such as the telephone or a face to face interaction. In such a medium, Katie would have been able to convey her message with little ambiguity given the multiplicity of cues that would have been available to Dan. In addition, immediate feedback from him would have been available to her so that she could have found out once and for all how he really felt. Katie strategically chose a mediated interaction because the valence of her interaction was negative because of her frustration and the locus was herself so it was easier to have a buffer in between her and Dan. This observation put Katie’s interaction in the “confess” spectrum in O’Sullivan’s chart.

How did Dan respond to Katie’s entreaty? Through Facebook message, of course! He essentially apologized for being the cause of Katie’s distress and told her it was her decision whether or not she still wanted to continue having any sort of relationship with him. He added that if she did, he certainly wanted to talk to her about his feelings. Popular opinion would probably say that Dan should have at the very least called Katie. O’Sullivan would have said that Dan’s actions conformed perfectly to his model. Dan knew that Katie felt hurt and angry and it was mostly his fault. Given a negative valence and a locus of self, people strongly prefer mediated communication, just as Katie had in her text message and just as Dan did in his email. Both of their messages balanced ambiguity and clarity in such a way that partially shielded both of them from potential rejection and hurt. Hopefully, Katie and Dan will be able to decide what they want and work out their relationship issues – with or without technological mediation.

3 (option 2) My Media Selections

One of my good friends at Cornell is taking this semester off and I can only speak with her when she calls me. Unfortunately, my parents' telephone number and the number that my friend calls me from are both restricted. So I told my friend that I am usually available around 6pm and to try to call me around that time.
This past Saturday was extremely hectic for me. I had to do a lot of homework, run some errands, and attend a formal which started at 7pm. I was extremely busy so I didn’t really have time to talk on my cell phone. When I received a missed phone call from a private number, I automatically assumed it was my parents calling because I haven’t heard from my friend in a week or so. When I initially looked at the missed call I didn’t feel the need to call my parents back right away because if it was urgent, they would have left a message. Later that evening, I looked at my phone again and saw that I missed another call from “private” but this time there was a voicemail. It was my friend and she left an upsetting message telling me that she isn’t going to call me again because she thought I was ignoring her calls. I was extremely hurt by the message and felt the need to contact her as quickly as possible to explain myself. Since I was unable to see her face-to-face, I decided to use the telephone so that she could hear how truly sorry I was for missing her calls. The phone call was an example of using a rich medium for a less equivocal task. I wanted to use language variety and make my message more personal so that she would see how truly sorry I was. This medium served best in this situation because I was able to provide immediate feedback to defend myself.
Earlier in the week I promised one of my friends that I would attend happy hour with her on Wednesday. However, when Wednesday came around, I wasn’t in the mood to drink and I wanted to go to the gym instead. When she text messaged me expressing how excited she was for happy hour, I felt badly telling her that I didn’t want to go. I decided to text message her after I thought of a good excuse of why I couldn’t go. I used this specific communication channel because I thought it would allow me more time to think about exactly what I wanted to say so I wouldn’t hurt her feelings. It also seemed a lot easier to lie through text messaging than it would have been if I had called her. I found that this situation supported O’Sullivan’s theory because I was seeking to increase equivocality by selecting a leaner channel. By using a lean medium (ex. text messaging), I had more time to plan my response, I had control over the message generation and transmission, and I felt that it decreased the chances of my deceptiveness being detected.

Assign 3 op 2 - awkward conversations, chit chat, and the important stuff

Between todays technologically advanced society and being a college student, perhaps the pinnacle of my social life, I use many different channels of media and forms of communication in the span of a weekend. The first instance which I encountered came when I needed to communicate to a professor, who ran a very small discussion style class, that I have to miss his class this upcoming week for the Jewish holidays. I decided to speak with him face to face rather than a more lean type of media such as email. Both forms of media would work, however, I decided to use face to face for several reasons. The most important reason was because I assumed I would gain the most information from face to face communication. Being perhaps the richest form of media, I figured I could find out the most about that class I would miss, any assignments I had questions on, and any other questions I may have had. In addition, it would be a great opportunity to speak with my professor on a one to one basis. By doing so, I could regulate and decide how to present myself to him and help him form an impression of me based on some of the facets of self presentation and impression management we discussed in lecture. Had we communicated via email, it would have been the most efficient way; however, it would not have been very personable and I would remain just another student in his class. In addition, I may not have received the most information about the class and all of my questions may not have been answered. This interaction which I encountered definitely supports the ideas of O’Sullivan and his Impression Management Model. This is the case because this model is not entirely about efficiency but rather the media chosen is a channel to regulate impression management and self presentation.
The second interaction which I encountered was over the weekend when I had to contact a freshman teammate on the track and field team and relay a message to him about a Saturday practice. As a sophomore, and him being a freshman, I have not really had the time to become friends or hang out with the person, and decided it would be best and least awkward to send him a text message rather than a phone call. At one point in the near future we will most definitely have a face to face conversation. Face to face media, being perhaps the richest form of media, would be a better channel to have an introductory conversation and aid in my self presentation, thus the text message was sent to avoid an awkward phone conversation and postponing that introductory conversation for a “richer” time. This also supports the O’Sullivan theory. Though a text message is more efficient, efficiency wasn’t my primary goal. Instead it was to avoid an awkward conversation and regulate my self presentation.

Murphy's Law

My weekend was filled with opportunities to use many different mediums to communicate to friends and family. First, a little story to explain the title of this blog, before I begin talking about equivocal tasks and rich mediums and interesting stuff like that. Everything that could have gone wrong this weekend…WENT WRONG. On Saturday night my car broke down ($725 dollars later, it will be fixed sometime this week). Also on Saturday night, I walked in the rain a little too long and got a cold. And on Sunday morning, my cell phone decided not to work. Life without my cell phone (a.k.a. the air in my lungs and the blood in my veins) is killing me. It is my number one way of communicating with the world!

Anyways, lack of cell phone made me use other mediums to communicate with the outside world. I had to stay in contact with my mom all Sunday and today, because the auto shop working on my car was going to call her with the diagnosis. I did the opposite of the media richness theory, for I used email (a leaner media) to communicate with my mom about my car (a more equivocal task). However, If my cell phone was working, I would have used the richer medium by calling her. It felt very impersonal and dry using email for such a situation. A simple phone call could have updated me on the status of my vehicle. Instead, I spent most of my day bumming computers off of my friends to check my email. No fun.

Before my ordeal started on Saturday night, I do recall sending one text message before my piece-of-junk phone decided to go into a coma. It was to my friend Vanessa, telling her to meet me at my friend’s house. Not an equivocal task (asking to meet somewhere), I sent a simple text message (lean medium). That way, if she didn’t feel like showing, rejection wouldn’t be so harsh on me or my friend. This instance of communication matches up with the media richness theory, because the unequivocal task of making plans does not require rich media.

All said and done...I just miss my phone.

3: The Efficient Medium

For most interactions, there are several methods of adequate communication. When I am making a purchase for the Cornell University Satellite Team (CUSat), the options are to order: by on-line ordering, by email or by phone. For the many customized orders, that must fulfill the proper regulations, reducing equivocality is crucial. Therefore, the best medium for ordering parts for the satellite is by phone. Over the phone, it is possible to have immediate stock checks, mention regulations and tax exemptions. Over the other media, it is not certain that “notes” and comments left at the bottom of an order will be followed or even noticed.

The choice of medium in this case is not dictated by self-presentation as O’Sullivan’s model showed, but it is relevant to the Media Richness Theory since the ambiguity of the orders asked for a relatively richer medium. The Media Richness Theory doesn’t necessarily call for a very rich medium to resolve equivocality but one that would relatively cause the communication to be the most efficient.

In another aspect of the team, recruiting new members to the team requires a different medium. For this, the most preferred medium is one that is Face-to-face. Even though a phone call or even a questionnaire by email with a resume attached may suffice, an FtF interview would provide a more careful evaluation. A phone call, though it may be a synchronous medium; allows for some degree tensions to dissipate through re-allocation of cognitive resources. From the applicant’s point of view, he or she would feel more inclined to try a mediated medium since the stress may cause a negative valence of the self (the interviewee). The applicant would feel their own self-presentation threatened in such a case. However, from my point of view, the recruiter, expecting the positive valences of the other, such as joy and enthusiasm would assume that the FtF medium would be preferred.

Unlike the first instance, O’Sullivan’s model proved correctly in this case. Depending on the expected valence of the self and other, the preferred medium differed from a mediated one to a FtF one. Since I was looking for the positive valence of the applicant, the less mediated the interaction would be, I would further be able to “praise” the applicant for their achievements. The applicant on the other hand would be anxious due to the uncertainty of their qualifications and their self-presentation would be threatened. In terms of Media Richness Theory, this instance qualifies as well. The equivocal nature of an interview plays a big role in the medium. This is because, if the interview was done over a questionnaire over email, the applicant could indulge in selective self-presentation and some over-attributions may take place on the recruiter’s end.

http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-3-as-facebook-would-say-its.html

http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-like-i-was-born-in-1975.html

3: Self-Presentation/Self-Preservation

I found O’Sullivan’s “What You Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Me” extremely insightful and on-target. It clearly provided reasons why users of media channels would select one particular channel over another with the “boost”, “praise”, “confess”, and “accuse” categories of self-presentational issues. Now I know exactly why I like writing letters to people I’m having issues with…

Last week, one of my closest friends and I had what I will refer to as a “small pocket of relational tension” due to the fact that I am sometimes guilty of considering my own interests over the interests of other people. The situation at hand made me particularly uncomfortable because I was having trouble determining whether I thought she was upset with me because I simply assumed she should be, or if I had accurately read her previous conversational cues over the telephone. Anyway, I decided to write my friend a Facebook message because the issue was a negatively-valenced in my direction. O’Sullivan explains in his third hypothesis that if “one’s own impression is expected to be threatened, preferences for mediated channels will be higher” (p. 416). So I chose to write a Facebook message, which is much like an e-mail, because I feel that I have most control over my self-presentation when I write. In addition, I considered my friend’s stress level at the time the message was sent (she had been at the library all day) and knew that an asynchronous communication, where she would be able to respond whenever she felt ready or compelled to, would be favorable for both of us. Incase you’re wondering, the matter was settled and my friend and I are doing just fine.

My second instance of media selection occurred today. This morning I remembered that tickets for Stephen Colbert’s “I Am America” comedy tour were going on sale, and I really wanted to purchase them. At this point in my life, I am completely dependent on my parents for financial support, so I knew I needed to get their permission before charging 4 tickets (so my friends and I can sit together, at $30 a pop) to their credit card. Remembering that my parents love when I call them, I decided to give them a ring. My straightforwardness in calling and asking them for this favor turned out to be a “boost” to my self-presentation. Choosing the telephone as my media channel was the best selection for this particular situation. A phone call is as intimate as I can be with my parents (as we are too far away from each other to have a FtF interaction), I got my answer quickly (yes!), and their impression of me turned out to be positive. Good things happen when you use media channels to your greatest advantage!

Links to my comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-like-i-was-born-in-1975.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/im-basically-attention-whore-3.html

#3 A Telephone and Facebook

The first media I chose was facebook. Go figure. I chose this medium of communication because it is fast, much like an IM or a text, and I also chose it because it was convenient. Almost everyone has some sort of availability to a internet equipped computer and therefore has access to Facebook! That's why it is convenient. I enjoy wasting time on facebook so why not write on someone's wall/do homework while I am wasting time.

I believe that facebook supported the Media Richness Theory. With MRT you have to have a rich medium which consists of things such as multicplicity of cues, availability of feedback, message personalization, and language variety. There must be an optimal match between these things and equivocality of the communication task. I was just letting my friend know that ultimate frisbee was cancelled because of rain, which is straight and to the point. It was a less equivocal task. Since the equivocality was less the richness of the medium did not have to be great. There was no language variety and there was no personalization of the message. The less the equivocal task, the less the richness of the medium needs to be.

The second medium of communication I chose was the telephone. The telephone is alot like facebook in that it is cheap and it is convenient. There is not a lot of effort that needs to go into it. I called my parents yesterday just to see how their weekend had went. From what we talked about and the tone of their voices, the overall conversation was very clear and understandable. I let them know that I had finally found a job which was positive valence and their reaction was a boost. I could hear how glad they were in their voices and that made me happy. I think if I were able to communicate with them through video my content level would have been even higher because I would have been able to see the smiles on their faces. I believe this medium supports
O'Sullivan because it was a positive valence for myself and it most definitely gave me a "boost."

First Comment: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=4503469069426153374

Second Comment: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7795178583799073774

Assignment #3:Are my friends AFRAID of me?!?!

Hi again,
For Assignment #3 we were given 2 choices on what we could write and both being extremely interested I had a hard time chosing, however, I chose to write about options #2: Identify and describe two different instances of media selection. We have been told to discuss why we (or the person observed) chose the given media, and relate the occurence to O'Sullivan's model either as support for or against it.
The first instance where I can note media selection was when my roommate/one of my best friends chose to message me about something via Facebook. That particular day or couple of days I had definately not myself; in fact one would say I was in a pretty bad mood. It was probably the typical attitude that evelopes Cornell studens as Ithaca weather becomes gloomy. The point is being a good friend she asked me multiple times if I was ok and I just said I was fine. Yes, I lied, but I didn't want to be a downer on everyone else. After this she didn't really pay much attention to the fact that I was down and I was somewhat suprised. However, the next morning I check my Facebook and I had a message from her. The basic jist of the message was that she knew something was wrong and felt bad to keep asking me but she hated seeing me sad and wanted to let me know she was here to talk to and to tell her what was up. At first this made me smile because I had thought she didn't care. After my initialo reaction I ended up wondering, why did she facebook me! Don't people only do that with people they aren't very close to? I was somewhat puzzled that she didn't just call me or talk to me in person. I feel that this does apply to O'Sullivan's Media Richness theory as my roomate chose an unambiguous method to confront me thus not supporting the media richness theory which would posit that she would do so in an ambiguous manor. The Media Richness Theory says that you would choose a rich media for more equivical tasks, yet my roommate chose a lean media.

The second instance where I noticed a particularly strang instance of media selection was through instant messaging. In short, after various attempts to meet up with one of my friends (i.e. calling and iming) with no response, I gave up contacting her feeling as though I was annoying her. However, 2 days later I received a long IM from her telling me how sorry she was and that she had been extremely busy with school and unexpected family problems. She stressed how she felt like such a bad friend and was so sorry. Of course I accepted her apology and told her I completely understood. Looking at this instance in terms of O'Sullivan's Media Richness Model one would say that my friend would contact me in a more face to face manner. Similar to my roommate the way in which my friend contacted me (via IM) directly goes against the Media Richness Theorys' position that richer media should go with more equivical matter.

In summary, while both these instances seem to go against O'Sullivan's Theory, only the first one seems a little odd. The instant messaging did not seem to me to be an odd way of apologizing a) because I frequently converse with this friend more through IM then on the phone and b) I know that her phone was actually broken (this was the only way she could reach me).

Best!
Whitney

#3- Decisions, decisions

For this assignment, I decided to take the option of describing two instances of media selection. My first incident happened over the weekend. I had a rough time with my boyfriend since I was exhausted from a stressful week. I was snappy whenever I was with him, which caused him to become frustrated with me. On Saturday night at around 2:00 in the morning, he sent me a text message, asking me to call him as soon as I could so that I could tell him what was wrong. Even though I was tired and did not expect the call to go well, I called him anyway. I thought that calling him would allow me to explain myself better than sending him a text message or talking to him online.

This example of calling my boyfriend even though I was the locus and the outcome was expected to be negative refutes O’Sullivan’s impression management model. By relying on richer media, I did the exact opposite of what O’Sullivan predicted for the “confess” tone. My decision to call my boyfriend instead of using leaner media supports the media richness theory because I chose a richer media for an equivocal task. Rich media allowed me to express my feelings better than lean media. However, the fact that my boyfriend had asked me to call him may also have played a factor in my decision to use the phone. If he had not asked explicitly, I may have decided to wait until later to call or to use a different media channel to communicate with him.

I had another example of media selection in making plans for the weekend. One of my friends wanted to meet up with me for dinner, so he initiated contact with me through a Facebook message. I responded to him with another message telling him when I was free and where I wanted to go for dinner. My friend confirmed plans with me through a final Facebook message.

My friend had no need to use rich media to set plans with me because the task was unequivocal and simple; again, this matches up with the media richness theory. However, it is interesting that he did not choose to call or instant message me, which would have helped with efficiency by allowing us to make dinner plans quicker; perhaps he wanted a little ambiguity in setting up plans just in case I did not want to meet up with him for dinner. The desire for ambiguity indicates that the impression management model is involved. Thus, this particular incident seems to involve both the media richness theory and the impression management model.


Comments posted at:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=5611388250066200893
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=8898394105468077491

3,2 SWG Older Female

Again this week I entered the online world of Star Wars Galaxies. I entered the world on a character that was designed to be a dancer/entertainer. This character basically is the same as the Twe’lek dancer, Oola that was seen in Jabb’s Palace as his personal dancer until she was fed to his Rancor beneath his trap door. Now when I entered the world as this character it was not the first time, but it had been a very long time since I had logged this character on. When I first started dancing in the Cantina I did not receive much attention. Now what we have to remember here is that I modeled this character after my personal image of a beautiful teenage to early twenties toon. Soon however I was very quickly beginning to get noticed. I soon developed a few regular customers over the day and by night some started to talk to me like we were face to face in real life, they started to ask me real life questions and acted as if they were truly interested in what I had to say. It was not long before I was discussing with a male character about how my other character was a bounty hunter and I was dancing in order to say up 12 million credits in order to purchase a new rifle to hunt with. Earlier this male character had asked me if I would be willing to go on a “date” with him ingame… I was hesitant because honestly this kinda weirded me out. Not to mention I was on teamspeak voice communicating with the rest of my guild, which is the other players I normally play with and they were having a field day listening to me. Soon the male character stated he would be right back and soon returned and tipped me 12 million credits for my entertainment. At this point I could not refuse but to go on a “date” with him. He brought me to all over the galaxy and eventually to a small house on tatooine where he had a dinner set up for us. After dinner I figured this had gone far enough and stated I need to go to bed. The next day when I logged on this male character messaged me and we talked a little, I felt I should tell him that I was not honest with him, I let him know I was older then I appeared. I stated I was a 47-year-old female… He did not really seem bothered at first. He was a college age male in real life, 20 years of age. Thought as the day went on he slowly began to talk to me less and less until I could not get a respond out of him…

3- A Question of Social Skill?

This past weekend, I used a variety of mediated channels to communicate with my girlfriend on her birthday (I was unable to go home to see her). In terms of impression management and communications channels to maintain relationships and a self presentation, I will use two mediated forms of communication and compare these selections I made to the messages I conveyed.
First, I decided use the telephone as a form of communicating a more intimate “happy birthday” message. Although it may not be as ‘rich’ as face-to-face, the telephone was rich enough to convey my intimacy. In other words, the telephone has “symbolic meaning” and it conveys a message that goes beyond just the verbal message. As mentioned before, the telephone is more intimate. In terms of the Locus, Valence and Self-Presentational Conditions Table, I chose this channel to exemplify “Praise” (which falls under a “positive” valence and the “other” locus).
On the other hand, later that day I chose to write her an e-mail to further exemplify my “Praise” on her birthday. However, I chose this channel because of my inability to articulate myself well during most synchronous conversations. O’Sullivan deduces three factors when he discusses channel preferences: interactional control, symbolism, and social skill. According to O’Sullivan, my selection of an asynchronous, leaner channel is due to the social skill factor. Using an e-mail to go into detail about plans for the next month, discussing our relationship further, and writing about her birthday gave me the “ability to manage interactions competently.” In fact, my use of e-mail agrees with O’Sullivan’s research asserting that “…in some circumstances, individuals seek to increase equivocality by selecting leaner channels.” And it disagrees with the Media Richness Theory which suggests just the opposite (that selecting richer channels are used more often to reduce equivocality).
In conclusion, it may be possible that my first choice, the telephone, could have supported the Media Richness Theory in that I aimed to eliminate equivocality by engaging in a synchronous conversation. The synchronicity allowed for verbal cues, language variety, and an available amount of feedback –what the Media Richness Theory entails. However, following up with an e-mail and allowing myself time to better articulate my meaning and sincerity with this particular birthday wish supported the Impression Management Model because I chose to reduce ambiguity by using a less rich form of media. From my own experience, I think a person’s personality has a large bearing on what type of channel they select to convey a particular message. (i.e. Are they introverted or extroverted? )

3, opt.2- Do you choose the right media?

Over the past week, I have used many different forms of media to communicate with different people. Friday night, I received several phone calls from a friend wanting me to go with her to a party. I however had promised someone already that I would go to another party and so did not want to answer her call. I knew if I did she would bug me non-stop until I went to this party. Now I have T-mobile and since it doesn’t have much service up here, my excuse of I didn’t get a phone call would surely work. However I accidently signed on to AIM on my computer right before I left and she must have been waiting for me to sign on because she sent a whole paragraph. I couldn’t ignore her and so figured talking on AIM would be easier than on the phone. I told her that I did not feel to good and was going to be staying in. This was a lean medium and seemed to serve me best. If I would have said it over the phone, my voice would have surely given away my lie. AIM provided an easy way to talk without me having to worry about my body language, facial expressions or voice tone to cover up my lie. It proved O’Sullivan’s theory because the lean medium decreased my chances of being detected and hid my lie. It also reduced the possible intensity of having a FtF conversation with her because she would be very persistent in me going.


My next selection of media communication was a phone call I made to my mother to defend my dog. I had just gotten a puppy before coming to school and had to leave him in my mother’s care while I went to school. He is in his teething stage where he is losing his baby teeth and growing in his adult teeth. As a result, he is chewing on everything he can find. To make a story short, my brother wrote to me stating that the dog had chewed the new aluminum siding on the house and my mom was not keeping him and would be bringing him to the shelter. I had to take immediate action and called my mom directly to defend the dog. We were able to argue it out and come to a compromise so that the dog would stay. I would send over chewy toys and bones to keep him distracted, and replace the aluminum siding that he chewed. The phone call was an example of rich medium and further proved O’Sullivan’s theory. This medium served best because I was able to provide immediate feedback to defend the dog. If it were over email, responses would take too long and she would lose patience. My voice also assured my mom I was not telling her lies about the dog teething and I would take care of it.


I commented on the following:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/thats_not_beer_in_my_pocket_dadim_just.html

http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/3_like_i_was_born_in_1975.html

3. Like I was Born in 1975...

I recently braved yet another online chatroom for this week’s assignment. This week I ended up in an online chatroom for 30 year old singles. After answering the initial a/s/l question from everyone I revealed that I was a 32 year old male from upstate New York. Shortly thereafter I received a private message from a 30 year old woman also in New York and we began having a conversation.
I noticed right away that there were major changes that I need to make in my conversation to pull off passing for a 32 year old. However, although I made some changes I kept the topics somewhat familiar to me so that I could easily expand on them and answer any follow up questions; this way my real identify should be protected. For example, when I was asked what I do, I told her that I was an educational consultant; simply because my dad works for an educational consulting company and I’ve worked there over the summer so I could easily carry on a conversation about this kind of work. Also, when I learned that she recently got back from a trip to Seattle I told her that I was there over the summer for work; when I was really there on vacation, however my experience allowed me to carry on a conversation about the city.
Being in an essentially synchronous chat had some major implications on how I managed my identity as well through several of the self presentational tactics. Since I was trying to be someone older I knew that my attitude expressions needed to shift a bit. I couldn’t tell her that I liked the same type of music or even movies that I’m interested in because they would likely give away my age. I adapted my tastes a bit to reflect that of what I felt a 32 year old white male from upstate New York would like or be interested in, and as far as I could tell it passed as reality. My nonverbal behavior also changed a lot since I was acting as a 32 year old as I began to make sure all of my I’s were capitalized and I didn’t use “u” for “you” like I normally would in AIM to appear more mature and professional. I also rarely used emoticons when I was chatting. My social associations also greatly aided me in my deception. These associations mainly came through in our discussion about my job. I told her how I got the chance to travel around the country for my job and work with principals and teachers in schools across the country. It’s very unlikely that someone who is 20 years old would have these kinds of social associations.

Links to my comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-3-whale-flip-flops.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-3-as-facebook-would-say-its.html

#3 A Weekend Chock Full O' Media Choices

Despite the monsoon like downpour on Saturday night, I still found myself trekking down the hill to west campus where I was supposed to meet up with a bunch of friends at a party. When I arrived, I didn’t see my friend Rachel right away so I sent her a text message: “I’m here, meet me outside!” The music was loud and she probably wouldn’t have heard what I had to say on the phone. Needless to say, I didn’t actually go through this whole thought process while I was waiting outside. Past experiences in similar situations have given me the wisdom and insight to send a text rather than waste my voice screaming on a phone.

This instance best supports the Media Richness Theory because the communication task at hand- sending a message in order to find Rachel- was incredibly straightforward. I chose text messaging, which is a leaner medium than the phone, because a phone call would have been useless in the particular situation. Text messaging was just more efficient. However, in analyzing the situation with the Impression Management Model in mind, I found it difficult to even assign a positive or negative valence to the situation and to clearly define the locus. Therefore, since these aspects of the Impression Management Model could not be incorporated in this particular situation, I would like to point out that this situation does not disprove the model.

Another situation I encountered this weekend involved contacting my friend who just arrived in Europe for a semester abroad. The nature of the conversation was rather serious and very equivocal, and my only options of contacting her were through e-mail and instant messaging (She is the one person I know who does not have facebook!). I chose to talk to her through instant messaging, the richest media I had available to me, because her immediate feedback was important. This was more equivocal in contrast to my first experience, however, upon further inspection, it better supports O’Sullivan’s model.

I think that the Media Richness Theory oversimplifies the situation and doesn’t exactly explain everything. Thinking more closely about the topic of my conversation, I am not sure I would have chosen to speak on a phone even if it was available to me. While the convenience and feedback aspect was definitely important in this overseas discussion, I think that I would have chosen a mediated interaction because I could more easily think things through before I actually sent them over an instant message. There was definitely some negative valance in this conversation (we were not having deep discussions about why the sky is blue!) but I cannot define a locus (things were mutual, and if I didn’t say something first I bet she would have).

But, this type of situation raises the question of whether both models can actually interact at the same time. Professor Hancock pointed out that the Media Richness Theory was mainly concerned with efficiency, and O’Sullivan’s was concerned with the struggle between clarity and ambiguity in impression formation. Are we constantly forming impressions, even if we send just a text message for efficiency? And, can we also be efficient while struggling for the right balance between clarity and ambiguity?

This assignment was difficult because the theory that was a better fit for the situation depends on what aspect of the situation I chose to interpret. What are your thoughts?

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=37915769472614045

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=3276954732394259952

I like lying to my parents FtF- 3

So, usually asking for a raise is a huge deal. The employee is expected to set up a professional meeting with his/her employee in order to discuss the benefits he/she has afforded the employer, and why he/she is deserving of the raise. In order to be properly prepared (say that five times fast), the employee does well to have an itemized list of accomplishments and skills achieved while at the company. In essence, he/she would like to prove his/her indispensability and prove that he he/she is a quality addition to the workplace team. According to the Media Richness Theory, this would be an equivocal task, where discussion and interaction usually takes place. In such a case, the Media Richness Theory calls for a rich medium, such as the recommended face to face medium.

However, when I requested a raise last semester, I used a less conventional medium- e-mail. I was afraid that in a face to face conference I would appear flustered and undeserving, or that I would forget all the reasons I deserved/needed a raise. Instead, I wrote all of the reasons out in my e-mail in a coherent, articulate, succinct manner. By choosing e-mail as my medium, I also avoided the embarrassment of essentially asking for more money (an already awkward proposal).

In this way, because asking for a raise proved to be a very difficult social task, I prefered a leaner medium (CMC) to a richer one.

For my second option, I chose to focus on my preference for lying to my parents face to face. In this way, I can respond to their verbal cues and alter my excuses to make them more believable. For instance, the other day I chose to "borrow" our portable DVD player for college. When my mom asked me about it face to face, I said I didn't know where it was. She gave me a funny look and responded that Betsey (my little sister) had seen me taking it out of the box. Because I responded to my mom's verbal and nonverbal cues that she was on to my deception, I changed my tune and told her that...oh yes, I did remember taking it out of the box but that I had then taken it to Dad's office and set it up for him in there. Because my Dad's office is like a black hole, my mom would probably just assume it was lost amid the mess, and she didn't question my any further.

In face to face deception, I am given more control of the situation and flexibility to respond to verbal and nonverbal cues at a moment's instant. I know who is in attendance at the moment and what surroundings we are in. In leaner mediums, such as over the phone, it is difficult to read my mother's suspicions, or know who she has around her to verify information. Sometimes, if my mom asks where I am over the phone, I hesitate to tell her, especially if I am at my boyfriend's house or a party. Although my mom is not expected until, such an hour at home, I cannot be sure that she didn't make it home before me. Thus, I do not have the freedom to say, I'm at home, since I don't know the circumstances my mom is in. She very well could be at home and has an easier chance of catching me in my lie. (I know that was pretty confusing- but hopefully you could follow along).

In this assistance, as Sullivan states, deceivers sometimes prefer a fact to face interaction than CMC.

3-choosing my media

In just the past few days, I have realized how often my means of communication are subconsciously chosen to fit my needs. I am one of the few people that brought a car to school in my house so I am always being asked to give others riders. Yesterday, it was raining and I was not in the friendliest of moods. When a girl in my house called, I knew she would be asking me to drive her somewhere, making me get out of my cozy bed and get soaked in the few steps from the house to my car. I was unwilling to do this and therefore ignored her call, not wanting to be persuaded by her pleading voice. I proceeded to wait a couple minutes and then sent a text saying, “Sorry, I’m trying to take a nap. What’s up?” She responded by telling me she did in fact need a ride but she would find someone else to drive her.
This choice in medium is in line with O’Sullivan’s theory. I really did not want to drive her, yet I knew that this was something negative about myself. I wasn’t being a good friend and it was my fault, showing that the locus was myself and there was a negative valence. Therefore, I did not want to have a rich medium to engage in a conversation where I would be in some ways confessing how I was being a bad person. Instead, the text was an efficient way to convey the message that I wasn’t going to do it and the subject was dropped completely.
Another instance where I chose my communication medium was when I learned that a good friend of mine from home had made negative comments about me and I wanted to confront him about it. There was no way to approach him in a face to face setting, but I did use the telephone, which is a richer medium than email, IM’s or text. I wanted him to be able to know I was hurt, feel bad about it, and explain to me the reasoning behind his comments. Through the use of the telephone, he was able to explain himself, apologize, and claim that he would never do it again.
My choice in the telephone supported both the Media Richness Theory and O’Sullivan’s theory. I chose the richer medium because I didn’t want there to be any room for ambiguity. I wanted to get straight to the point and have a synchronous conversation, therefore enabling immediate feedback. I also chose the telephone because I was accusing my friend of something. According to O’Sullivan’s theory, there was a need for clarity and the locus was someone else, directing me to choose a richer medium. Although the valence was negative, the locus of another was more important to me and therefore I was able to use the telephone to make my accusation, get my explanation, and ultimately solve the conflict.

Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=4503469069426153374
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2122817516247453711

Assignment #3, Option 2...so many options, so many motivations

With all the social interactions we make on a day-to-day basis, and all the various mediums we have to choose from to make these interactions, we have a great deal of options when it comes to what we want to communicate, who we want to communicate with, and how we want to communicate. Reflecting on my experiences with this assignment, I tried to come to some sort of conclusion of whether or not the Media Richness Theory or the O'Sullivan model were more accurate in terms of how we communicate and why. However, there are really so many more factors that come into play when choosing a medium to communicate, and it was not as easy as I had hoped to come to this sort of conclusion. I still find myself leaning back and forth between the two theories, partially because for the most part I was communicating with someone I already knew quite well, so impression management was not really a factor.

The first social interaction I chose to reflect on for this assignment took place over the weekend, when my roommates and I decided to have a party, but that we didn’t want it to be too big. There were a few select people that I wanted to be there-namely, my closest friends here- and so I decided to invite them in person, when I saw them the night before we were having our party. At first it was hard for me to decide the valence and locus of this interaction because it really wasn’t about just me wanting to invite them (a positive valence and locus of others), but it also had to do with my not wanting to invite other people, my wanting to specify that I didn’t want it to be a big thing, the convenience of my hanging out with them the night before, etc. But ultimately, the communication that took place had a positive valence and a locus of other (the fact that we wanted to invite them was a positive message geared toward them), and according to the O’Sullivan theory, this would be the least likely situation to prefer mediated communication, which indeed I did not do. On the other hand, the message was not a very ambiguous one—to dole out an invite does not include much equivocality at all, so in this case, according to the Media Richness Theory, I should have chosen a leaner medium than FtF for this communication. So with my first example, while I struggled at first with trying to simplify my motivations to comply with the theories, I came to the conclusion that the O’Sullivan theory fit with my experience much more than the Media Richness Theory.

The second social interaction that I chose to reflect on for this assignment was a very simple communication that took place between me and my boyfriend. He was visiting Ithaca this weekend and later in the day after he left, I sent him a text message to make sure he got home alright and to thank him for visiting. I would say this message also has a positive valence and a locus of other, and yet I chose a very lean channel by which to communicate this message, which obviously does not comply with the O’Sullivan theory. Instead, because the equivocality was low, I chose a lean medium, which fit much better with the Media Richness Theory. However, I didn’t choose a text in this case simply because the equivocality was low, but essentially because I didn’t feel like spending the time to call and have a whole conversation when there was only one thing I wanted to say, so a text was just more convenient and efficient. Overall, what I’ve found with this assignment is that both theories are legitimate and apply to certain situations, but that the most important factor for me was not necessarily equivocality, valence, or locus, as much as convenience. If it’s easier for me at the time to send a text, because I don’t feel like having a full out conversation, then that’s what I’ll do. But if I’m around people anyway, then I wouldn’t wait to send them a text or a facebook message after the fact to invite them to a party since it’s easiest to do it right then in person. While ambiguity, clarity, valence, locus, and efficiency are all relevant considerations, there are other important factors that come into play, and our motivations may not always be as simple as we might like them to be.

my comments:

http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-option-2-my-media-selections.html

http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/3-weekend-chock-full-o-media-choices.html

#3 - Facebook or FtF?

The beginning of every school year is filled with people adding and dropping classes, buying textbooks and unpacking their rooms. But, in addition to these mundane activities, every school year also begins with trying to catch up with all your friends that you haven’t seen or talked to all summer. So how do students in college make plans to meet up with their old friends? Facebook of course! It is easy, fast and convenient. Just a few days ago I wrote on my friend, “Lola’s”, wall about lunch plans. So why did I use facebook instead of just calling my old pal? Is it because I don’t know her that well, do I not feel that comfortable with her, or are we more acquaintances than friends? No. Lola and I are actually close friends. The reason I decided to use facebook was because it was quicker and much more efficient than telephone. I know that Lola and I are usually busy with meetings and other activities so facebook, being a lean media, would give both of us more control over when and how we respond. With facebook, we can both look over our schedules and respond accordingly; as oppose to a long, confusing telephone call which would go something like this:

“Wednesday? O no I can’t I have class all day. Um ok Thursday? Nope meeting. O hmm Ok how about I just send you what days I’m free on facebook and then let me know what works. Ok sounds good. Bye.”

As you can see facebook is much more efficient for simple, non-equivocal tasks like a lunch date. This situation falls in line with the media richness theory, where one try’s to match the type of media with the social task. It states that for less equivocal tasks (lunch date) lean media are preferable because of efficiency. O’Sullivan’s model does not come into play here because impression management is not the goal. I am already friends with Lola and I am not trying to engage in self-presentational tactics. Valence and locus are also not important in this situation. It is simply about efficiency.

A related situation in which I chose a face-to-face media as oppose to facebook was when I decided to not write the recent “dramas” in my life on Lola’s wall but waited till our face-to-face lunch date. I waited to till our FtF to talk about recent news because it is much easier and efficient to talk to someone about your life instead of typing it all out on facebook. Further, in a lean media I would not be able to see Lola’s immediate reaction and feedback. Hence, facebook is less efficient in this situation. The media richness theory claims that for equivocal tasks, rich media are preferred because of efficiency, multiplicity of cues and availability of feedback.


Links to comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=5507221765567332763


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=8465745537270768793