Differences between media for interpersonal communication beukeboom

Differences between media for
interpersonal communication
and media choice.

Camiel Beukeboom
Dept. of Communication Science
p
VU University Amsterdam

Department of Communication Science
Session 7 VU University Amsterdam

Today
Media for interpersonal communication
p
Abundance of media to choose from
Why do people choose certain media?
What exactly are the differences between
What
media?
What
Wh are the consequences of these
h f h
differences?

Media and the Individual 2012 2


Media choice and performance in interpersonal comm.

Before Use During Use After Use
Selecting Medium Outcome
capabilities



Scenario: Which medium do you choose?
S h h d d h ?
You want to end the romantic relationship
You
with your partner. Your friends think you
should have done this a long time ago. You
didn’t yet, because you find it difficult to find
wo ds e p a w y t s t going we .
words to explain why it isn’t go g well.



Scenario: Which medium do you choose?
S h h d d h ?
You plan to book a wintersports holiday with
You
three friends. You alsways go to the same spot
in France.
This year a fifth person is joining. You know
him it
hi quite well, b t th others d ’t and you
ll but the th don’t, d
have never been on a holiday with him before.
One of your friends suggests that France may
have good snow and pistes but that Austria has
much better apres-ski bars.


Today: Technological determinism
How technological capabilities of media determine
g p
media choice and performance.
Important models / theories
Important
Social Presence Theory (Short, Williams & Christy,
1976)
Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986)
Reduced Social Cues approach (Sproull & Kiesler
1986)
986)
Media synchronicity and media choice (Dennis,
Fuller & Valacich, 2009)
Media and the Individual 2012


Social Presence Theory (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976)
Social presence ≈ awareness of the other person
p p
Degree of social presence in a medium is determined
by the extent in which physical, visual, auditory
contact is possible
More possible  more potential for “presence”
Low social presence High social presence
text audio FtF

Low potential to exercise High potential to exercise
social influence social influence



Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986)
 Bandwidth: The capacity of a medium to transmit signals.
Media differ in the extent that they allow:
Interactivity (capacity for immediate feedback)
The transmission of different types of cues
The use of natural language
A personal focus (social emotional cues)
A
 Fit between complexity of the message and medium richness
Complexity of the message:
uncertainty: The absence of information
equivocality: The ambiguity of information
Degree of routine: the (shared) experience with the task
/ message


Media Richness Theory: Fit

Media richne >
ess



Media Richness Theory: Fit

Over
chness
edia ric s complication

fit
Me

Over
simplification
low middle high
Complexity of communication
task
Daft & Lengel, Trevino 1987


Reduced Social Cues approach (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986)
 A lack of capacity to transmit different types of cues has
a variety of (both d i bl and undesirable)
i t f (b th desirable nd nd i bl )
consequences
Static cues:
Clothes/ location/ physical properties
Dynamic cues:
Body language/ f i l expression/ tone of voice
B d l / facial i / f i
Consequences of (a lack of) these cues:
Less information about the type of person you’re dealing with
yp p y g
Blurring of hierarchical / expertise differences
Creating uncertainty
Lower persuasive power
anonimity and de-individuation


Reduced Social Cues approach (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986)



Up until now:
Media constrain the types of information that can be
yp
transmitted (i.e., bandwidth)
Larger bandwidth (i.e., richer medium):
More social presence (cf, Short, Williams & Christie,
1976)
More complex task (cf, Daft & Lenger, 1986)
(cf Lenger
More attention for the individual (cf, Sproull & Kiesler,
1986)
Fit between task and medium is essential
However, not convincingly shown in research (Dennis et al).
Better look at “communication processes” than “task”.


Different communication processes (Dennis et al., 2009*)

Conveyance: The transmission of new
Conveyance:
information from person A to person B
Convergence: A
C Agree on th meaning of the
the i f th
information; Reach a shared understanding.
Integration of two perspectives
I i f i
Higher level of interaction neccessary
Back and f h
B k d forth
* Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M. & Valacich, J. S. (2009): Media synchronicity and media choice: Choosing media for performance
(Chapt.), In T. Hartmann (Ed.), Media Choice: A theoretical and empirical overview (pp. 247-273). New York: Routledge.



Different communication processes (Dennis et al., 2009)
Media synchronicity: The extent to which the
y y
capabilities of a communication medium enable
individuals to work together at the same time with a
shared pattern of coordinated behavior.
Ability to receive immediate feedback
Quickly assess and modify messages (even during
Quickly
transmission)
For conveyance processes low synchronicity medium
is beneficial > better performance
For convergence processes high synchronicity
medium is beneficial > better performance


Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)
d bl ( l
The technological capabilities
g p
(affordances) of a medium determines
its capacity to support synchronicity
synchronicity.
Basic aspect: Copresence (aka co-
location): are person A and B in same
physical environment?
FtF ( ) vs mediated conversations ( )
(yes) di t d ti (no)
Facebook, stay in touch with old friends
Twitter



@astro_andre
d

‘I went to space and all I got was this lousy T-shirt’


d bl ( l
1. Transmission velocity (speed / interactivity)
Subtopics (Clark & Brennan, 1991):
Cotemporality: person B receives at the same time
as person A produces
d
Telephone (yes) vs voicemail, letter (no)
Simultaneity: A and B can send and receive
y
simultaneously (a sender perceives reaction to his
utternance while it is produced)
FtF ( ) vs chat (no)
F F (yes) h ( )



d bl ( l
2. Parallelism: the number of simultaneous
transmissions possible (more than 1 person
addressed).
)
1 on 1 vs 1-to-more (e.g., ftf group, what’sapp
group), 1-to-many (e.g. twitter, mass emails, blog,
lecture)
Recipients feel less addressed, not responsible to
answer
High parallelism reduces interaction coherence,
and shared focus: lower synchronicity



d bl ( l
3. Symbol sets (multiplicity of cues): Possibility for
(different types) of nonverbal messages (cf. Static cues
and dynamic cues, RSC)
Visibility: A and B are visible to each other
FTF, skype vs. telephone
Body language gestures clothes location physical
language, gestures, clothes, location,
properties, facial expression
Audibility: A and B communicate by speaking
y y p g
Voice mail vs. SMS
tone of voice
Cf. Social presence, media richness


d bl ( l
4. Rehearsability (aka editability, revisability):
sender can rehearse or fine tune a message
during encoding, before sending.
Ftf (no) vs email, twitter (yes)
carefully construct message, think about the best
y g
way to formulate it



d bl ( l
5. Reprocessability (aka reviewability): recipients
can re-examine / process messages again,
during decoding or later.
 Speech in Ftf (no) vs recorded speech (voicemail),
email,
email chat history, twitter, letters (yes)
history twitter
Advantages and disadvantages



d bl ( l
5. Reprocessability (aka reviewability):
Rotte vis en andere e-mails uit de Haagse PVV
"We hebben vandaag nog een aantal klachten over het
Verkeerscirculatieplan nodig", zo luidt de tekst van een van de
e mails. Ieder
e-mails. "Ieder een aantal klachtjes typen. 10 minuten werk.
werk."

 European Union: stricter laws on internet privacy The right to
privacy.
forget (‘recht op vergetelheid’)
 Film: Ipod, Iphone, Iam (12.00-15.26min)
p p ( )



d bl ( l
Synchronicity is high in media with: high
y y g g
transmission velocity, more symbol sets
Negative effect of: parallelism (distraction), no
rehearsability and no reprocessability (delay)
h bl d b l (d l )
Conveyance process better in media with low
synchronicity,
synchronicity and with rehearsability,
rehearsability
reprocessability
Convergence p
g process better in media that enable high
g
synchronicity
Negative effect of: parallelism, rehearsability and no
reprocessability when th cause d l
bilit h they delays



It‘s all about …
 Technological capabilities of media determine:
g p
how conversations develop (performance /
effectiveness)
media choice: People are expected to choose a
medium that fits the task/ type of conversation at
hand
Knowledge about these issues allow you to
analyze whether a used medium is the best
medium for a given interaction.



What is the right medium to end a relationship?
h h h d d l h ?



What i h i h
Wh is the right medium for a lecture?
di f l ?



It‘s all about …
However, is media choice only determined by
y y
capabilities and expected effectiveness of the
medium?
For tomorrow: what other factors (aside from
medium capabilities) determine your choice of
media (for IPC)? And what other factors
determine the course and outcome of mediated
conversations?


Thank you !

Camiel Beukeboom
Dept. of Communication Science
p
VU University Amsterdam

Differences between media for interpersonal communication beukeboom

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Differences between media for interpersonal communication beukeboom

Similar to Differences between media for interpersonal communication beukeboom (20)

More from ACSM @ VU University Amsterdam

More from ACSM @ VU University Amsterdam (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Differences between media for interpersonal communication beukeboom