Differences between media for interpersonal communication beukeboom

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


Media choice and performance in interpersonal comm.

During UseMedium capabilities

Before UseSelecting

After UseOutcome



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 .



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


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,


Fuller & Valacich, 2009)


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 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


Degree of routine: the (shared) experience with the task/ message


Media Richness Theory: Fit

ess

>ri

chn

eM

edia



Media Richness Theory: Fit

s Overch

nes

s Over complication

fit

edia

ric

Me

Over simplification

Complexity of communicationlow middle high

simplification


Daft & Lengel, Trevino 1987

Complexity of communication task


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


Lower persuasive poweranonimity and de-individuation


Reduced Social Cues approach (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986)



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).


Better look at “communication processes” than “task”.


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


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


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


medium is beneficial > better performance

15


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



d@astro_andre


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


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)



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


and shared focus: lower synchronicity

19



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


Cf. Social presence, media richness20



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




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




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)


p p ( )

23


Media capabilities (Dennis et al., 2009)



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


reprocessability when they cause delays

25


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.



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



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



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?


Thank you !

Camiel Beukeboom

Dept. of Communication SciencepVU University Amsterdam

Education

Differences between media for interpersonal communication beukeboom