Upload
acsm-vu-university-amsterdam
View
697
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Over technologische verschillen tussen media en effecten daarvan voor media keus en verloop interactie
Citation preview
Differences between media for interpersonal communication
and media choice.
Camiel Beukeboom
Dept. of Communication SciencepVU University Amsterdam
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Today
Media for interpersonal communicationp
Abundance of media to choose from
Why do people choose certain media?
What exactly are the differences betweenWhat exactly are the differences between media?
Wh h f hWhat are the consequences of these differences?
Media and the Individual 2012 2
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Media choice and performance in interpersonal comm.
During UseMedium capabilities
Before UseSelecting
After UseOutcome
Media and the Individual 2012 3
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
S h h d d h ?Scenario: Which medium do you choose?
You want to end the romantic relationshipYou want to end the romantic relationship with your partner. Your friends think you should have done this a long time ago. Youshould have done this a long time ago. You didn’t yet, because you find it difficult to find words to explain why it isn’t going well.wo ds to e p a w y t s t go g we .
Media and the Individual 2012 4
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
S h h d d h ?Scenario: Which medium do you choose?
You plan to book a wintersports holiday withYou plan to book a wintersports holiday with three friends. You alsways go to the same spot in France.in France.
This year a fifth person is joining. You know hi it ll b t th th d ’t dhim quite well, but the others don’t, and you 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
Media and the Individual 2012
much better apres-ski bars.5
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Today: Technological determinism
How technological capabilities of media determine g pmedia choice and performance.
Important models / theoriesImportant models / theoriesSocial Presence Theory (Short, Williams & Christy,
1976)Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986)Reduced Social Cues approach (Sproull & Kiesler
986)1986)
Media synchronicity and media choice (Dennis,
Media and the Individual 2012
Fuller & Valacich, 2009)
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Social Presence Theory (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976)
Social presence ≈ awareness of the other personp p
Degree of social presence in a medium is determined by the extent in which physical, visual, auditoryby the extent in which physical, visual, auditory contact is possible
More possible more potential for “presence”
text FtFaudioLow social presence High social presence
Low potential to exercise social influence
High potential to exercise social influence
Media and the Individual 2012
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
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 cuesThe transmission of different types of cuesThe use of natural language A personal focus (social emotional cues)A personal focus (social emotional cues)
Fit between complexity of the message and medium richnessComplexity of the message:
uncertainty: The absence of informationequivocality: The ambiguity of informationDegree of routine: the (shared) experience with the task
Media and the Individual 2012
Degree of routine: the (shared) experience with the task/ message
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Media Richness Theory: Fit
ess
>ri
chn
eM
edia
Media and the Individual 2012
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Media Richness Theory: Fit
s Overch
nes
s Over complication
fit
edia
ric
Me
Over simplification
Complexity of communicationlow middle high
simplification
Media and the Individual 2012
Daft & Lengel, Trevino 1987
Complexity of communication task
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Reduced Social Cues approach (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986) A lack of capacity to transmit different types of cues has
i t f (b th d i bl nd nd i bl )a variety of (both desirable and undesirable) consequences
Static cues:Clothes/ location/ physical properties
Dynamic cues:B d l / f i l i / f iBody language/ facial expression/ tone of voice
Consequences of (a lack of) these cues:Less information about the type of person you’re dealing withyp p y gBlurring of hierarchical / expertise differencesCreating uncertaintyLower persuasive power
Media and the Individual 2012
Lower persuasive poweranonimity and de-individuation
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Reduced Social Cues approach (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986)
Media and the Individual 2012
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Up until now:
Media constrain the types of information that can be yptransmitted (i.e., bandwidth)Larger bandwidth (i.e., richer medium):
More social presence (cf, Short, Williams & Christie, 1976)
More complex task (cf Daft & Lenger 1986)More complex task (cf, Daft & Lenger, 1986)More attention for the individual (cf, Sproull & Kiesler,
1986)
Fit between task and medium is essentialHowever, not convincingly shown in research (Dennis et al).
Media and the Individual 2012
Better look at “communication processes” than “task”.
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Different communication processes (Dennis et al., 2009*)
Conveyance: The transmission of newConveyance: The transmission of newinformation from person A to person B
C A th i f thConvergence: Agree on the meaning of the information; Reach a shared understanding.I i f iIntegration of two perspectivesHigher level of interaction neccessary
B k d f hBack and forth
* Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M. & Valacich, J. S. (2009): Media synchronicity and media choice: Choosing media for performance
Media and the Individual 2012
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.
14
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Different communication processes (Dennis et al., 2009)
Media synchronicity: The extent to which the y ycapabilities of a communication medium enable individuals to work together at the same time with a shared pattern of coordinated behavior.Ability to receive immediate feedbackQuickly assess and modify messages (even duringQuickly assess and modify messages (even during
transmission)For conveyance processes low synchronicity medium
is beneficial > better performanceFor convergence processes high synchronicity
medium is beneficial > better performance
Media and the Individual 2012
medium is beneficial > better performance
15
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d b l ( l 2009)Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)The technological capabilities g p
(affordances) of a medium determinesits capacity to support synchronicityits capacity to support synchronicity.
Basic aspect: Copresence (aka co-location): are person A and B in samelocation): are person A and B in same physical environment?
FtF ( ) di t d ti ( )FtF (yes) vs mediated conversations (no)Facebook, stay in touch with old friendsTwitter
Media and the Individual 2012 16
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d@astro_andre
Media and the Individual 2012 17
‘I went to space and all I got was this lousy T-shirt’
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d b l ( l 2009)Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)1. Transmission velocity (speed / interactivity)
Subtopics (Clark & Brennan, 1991):Cotemporality: person B receives at the same time
A das person A producesTelephone (yes) vs voicemail, letter (no)
Simultaneity: A and B can send and receiveysimultaneously (a sender perceives reaction to hisutternance while it is produced)
F F ( ) h ( )FtF (yes) vs chat (no)
Media and the Individual 2012 18
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d b l ( l 2009)Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)
2. Parallelism: the number of simultaneous2. 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 answeranswer
High parallelism reduces interaction coherence, and shared focus: lower synchronicity
Media and the Individual 2012
and shared focus: lower synchronicity
19
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d b l ( l 2009)Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)
3. Symbol sets (multiplicity of cues): Possibility for3. 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. telephoneBody language gestures clothes location physicalBody language, gestures, clothes, location, physical
properties, facial expressionAudibility: A and B communicate by speakingy y p g
Voice mail vs. SMStone of voice
Media and the Individual 2012
Cf. Social presence, media richness20
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d b l ( l 2009)Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)
4. Rehearsability (aka editability, revisability):4. Rehearsability (aka editability, revisability): sender can rehearse or fine tune a message during encoding, before sending.during encoding, before sending.Ftf (no) vs email, twitter (yes)carefully construct message, think about the best y g
way to formulate it
Media and the Individual 2012 21
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d b l ( l 2009)Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)
5. Reprocessability (aka reviewability): recipients5. Reprocessability (aka reviewability): recipients can re-examine / process messages again, during decoding or later.during decoding or later. Speech in Ftf (no) vs recorded speech (voicemail),
email chat history twitter letters (yes)email, chat history, twitter, letters (yes)Advantages and disadvantages
Media and the Individual 2012 22
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d b l ( l 2009)Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)
5. Reprocessability (aka reviewability):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 een aantal klachtjes typen. 10 minuten werk."e mails. Ieder een aantal klachtjes typen. 10 minuten werk.
European Union: stricter laws on internet privacy The right to European Union: stricter laws on internet privacy. The right to forget (‘recht op vergetelheid’)
Film: Ipod, Iphone, Iam (12.00-15.26min)
Media and the Individual 2012
p p ( )
23
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)
Media and the Individual 2012 24
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
d b l ( l 2009)Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)Synchronicity is high in media with: high y y g g
transmission velocity, more symbol sets Negative effect of: parallelism (distraction), no
h b l d b l (d l )rehearsability and no reprocessability (delay)Conveyance process better in media with low
synchronicity and with rehearsabilitysynchronicity, and with rehearsability, reprocessability
Convergence process better in media that enable high g p gsynchronicityNegative effect of: parallelism, rehearsability and no
bilit h th d l
Media and the Individual 2012
reprocessability when they cause delays
25
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
It‘s all about …
Technological capabilities of media determine:g phow conversations develop (performance /
effectiveness)media choice: People are expected to choose a
medium that fits the task/ type of conversation at handhand
Knowledge about these issues allow you to analyze whether a used medium is the bestanalyze whether a used medium is the best medium for a given interaction.
Media and the Individual 2012 26
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
h h h d d l h ?What is the right medium to end a relationship?
Media and the Individual 2012 27
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
Wh i h i h di f l ?What is the right medium for a lecture?
Media and the Individual 2012 28
Department of Communication Science VU University AmsterdamSession 7
It‘s all about …
However, is media choice only determined by y ycapabilities and expected effectiveness of the medium?
For tomorrow: what other factors (aside from medium capabilities) determine your choice ofmedium capabilities) determine your choice of media (for IPC)? And what other factors determine the course and outcome of mediateddetermine the course and outcome of mediated conversations?
Media and the Individual 2012 29
Thank you !
Camiel Beukeboom
Dept. of Communication SciencepVU University Amsterdam