This past weekend, a number of important social interactions occurred in my life. For these interactions, it was necessary for me to decide which media I would like for them to occur through. The reasons for which I chose the medias through which these two social interactions would occur had very little to do with the ideas of the impression management model, but closely lined up with the concepts of the Media Richness Theory.
The Media Richness Theory states that people will choose a rich media for more equivocal tasks, and a less rich media for less equivocal tasks. Characteristics of a richer media are multiplicity of cues, availability of feedback, message personalization, and language variety. An example of a rich media is face to face communication, while an example of a less rich media is text messaging. The second part of the Media Richness Theory talks about the equivocalness of tasks. Equivocal refers to the ambiguity, or vagueness of a particular task. An equivocal undertaking would include hiring an employee, while a less equivocal task would be asking someone to meet you for lunch.
The first social interaction that I examined was highly equivocal. As I result of this, I decided to carry the task out in a very rich media, which was face to face communication. This weekend I told my parents something very important about an aspect of my life, an aspect which they were unaware of. Due to the vagueness and ambiguity of the task, as well as its highly emotional and personal nature, I thought it completely unreasonable and selfish to communicate the message through any media other than face to face. Ultimately the success of the social interaction depended on a number of things characteristic to rich medias. The cues given by them were very useful to me in telling how they felt, and what they were thinking. The reverse also holds true, as they used my cues to control and modify their actions and words as appropriate. Without the feedback that both sides of the interaction received, it would have been nearly impossible to address the concerns of everyone involved. Message personalization and language variety were also crucial in allowing me to adequately relay my sentiments and emotions to my parents, as well as for them to relay theirs to me. A rich media was necessary in this highly equivocal task to allow the social task to go smoothly, and to allow everyone involved to walk away feeling good about the interactions that had just occurred.
The second task was much less equivocal than the first task, and as a result I chose to communicate through a less rich media, a text message. The text message allowed me to cut out unnecessary cues and social exchanges, and allowed me to be efficient in asking my rather unambiguous question: "Want to meet for lunch?"
The Media Richness Theory not only accurately predicted the medias that I would choose for two tasks to occur through, but also predicted the reasons for which I would choose these two medias.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Assignment #3 - Choosing the leaner option
As I’m really not creative or imaginative enough to take on another identity, I chose the second option to discuss this week. Forgive me if the first incident sounds a little cliché, but my friend’s experience over the weekend seems very applicable here. A friend and I were at a party this past Friday night where she met a guy and subsequently exchanged numbers with him at the end of the night. She was now faced with the dilemma that typically arises the day after meeting someone of whether to text, call or Facebook the person and how long to wait before doing so. After waiting what she deemed to be the “appropriate” time, she decided to text him a very subtle message because she didn’t want to seem over eager to speak to him. Instead of choosing a richer media, like a phone call, for this interaction, she purposely opted for a lean media in order to convey a certain air of nonchalance with an ambiguous text message.
Her experience was inconsistent with Media Richness Theory because she didn’t choose the richest medium to send the desired message. From experiences that my friends and I have had with text-based flirting, we repeatedly choose a much leaner media even though the information sent is of an extremely equivocal nature. I think it better aligns with the second hypothesis of O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model, which states that when the locus expected to be self, we prefer a mediated interaction. Because the results of the text messaging would directly affect how the guy would perceive her, she chose a medium based on the amount of control she could exert over the communication.
The second selection of a medium occurred when I had to inform one of my TA’s that I would have to miss section this week due to a religious holiday. Since it was only logistics and the message was extremely to the clear, I decided the best option was to email him. This interaction supports the Media Richness Theory because of the unequivocal nature of the information sent. The optimal media in this instance is a lean media, like email, because it’s the most efficient way to send the desired message.
In both instances, a lean media was used to rely a desired message. However, as the content of the message differed in both cases, they each supported a different theory of Impression Management.
Her experience was inconsistent with Media Richness Theory because she didn’t choose the richest medium to send the desired message. From experiences that my friends and I have had with text-based flirting, we repeatedly choose a much leaner media even though the information sent is of an extremely equivocal nature. I think it better aligns with the second hypothesis of O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model, which states that when the locus expected to be self, we prefer a mediated interaction. Because the results of the text messaging would directly affect how the guy would perceive her, she chose a medium based on the amount of control she could exert over the communication.
The second selection of a medium occurred when I had to inform one of my TA’s that I would have to miss section this week due to a religious holiday. Since it was only logistics and the message was extremely to the clear, I decided the best option was to email him. This interaction supports the Media Richness Theory because of the unequivocal nature of the information sent. The optimal media in this instance is a lean media, like email, because it’s the most efficient way to send the desired message.
In both instances, a lean media was used to rely a desired message. However, as the content of the message differed in both cases, they each supported a different theory of Impression Management.
3 'Caliguy' and 'Caligurl... guy'
For the third assignment, I decided to enter a chat room and change my identity. Switching to a female, I quickly realized how easy it would be to fool people. I entered as ‘Caligurl’, expecting the name to stir interest. I was correct. As soon as I said hi to everyone in the room, I received immediate requests for private conversations
I began my own private conversation with ‘Caliguy’. He first asked the usual, “asl?” After finding out my perfect 5’6”, 107lb body size, he began asking about my clothes. Unlike many people in chat rooms, he quickly switched topics and asked about my life. As our conversation continued, he started showing some affection. I told him I was attending Stanford as a sophomore communication major. He was very interested in journalism and asked a few questions about my studies. After searching the internet to answer some of his questions regarding my time at Stanford, ‘Caliguy’ told me he recently graduated from Berkeley as an electrical engineer. By this point, he had persuaded me that he was a nice person overall. He told me that he would be traveling to Palo Alto, CA within the next week and was interested in taking me out on a date. Oddly, by this point, I had fully assumed the role of ‘Caligurl’. I knew it was time to break the news.
I felt bad telling him that I had deceived him. He seemed like a nice guy hoping for a date. When I told him, he was a little shocked, but not as much as I would have expected. I told him I was a male conducting a communication study. He was very understanding, so I apologized and bid him good luck with his search for a girl.
Managing my impressions was not difficult. As I told ‘Caliguy’ about myself, I had a bit of trouble specifying details about Stanford and the area. To relieve this problem, I simply got information from Stanford’s website and wrote details down on a piece of paper. As we got to know each other better, I started answering as if I, myself, were speaking to a girl. I gradually assumed ‘Caligurl’s’ identity and grew more attracted (in the sense of personality) to ‘Caliguy’. Towards the end of our conversation, I was confident he would not detect my deception. I could tell he was very interested in me as a person. Since I was giving my own ideas and opinions, I knew I could not go wrong.
The psychological space on the internet that I chose certainly affected my presentation of ‘myself’. In the chat room, ‘Caliguy’ had no means of seeing me in person. Therefore, my self-description conveyed that I was a perfectly built college girl. In addition, my nonverbal behavior could not be seen, so ‘Caliguy’s’ lack of cues led him to believe I was telling the truth. Additionally, I used social associations (Stanford) to convey that I was intelligent on top of everything else. The combination of these self-presentational tactics worked to both deceive and genuinely interest ‘Caliguy’.
I began my own private conversation with ‘Caliguy’. He first asked the usual, “asl?” After finding out my perfect 5’6”, 107lb body size, he began asking about my clothes. Unlike many people in chat rooms, he quickly switched topics and asked about my life. As our conversation continued, he started showing some affection. I told him I was attending Stanford as a sophomore communication major. He was very interested in journalism and asked a few questions about my studies. After searching the internet to answer some of his questions regarding my time at Stanford, ‘Caliguy’ told me he recently graduated from Berkeley as an electrical engineer. By this point, he had persuaded me that he was a nice person overall. He told me that he would be traveling to Palo Alto, CA within the next week and was interested in taking me out on a date. Oddly, by this point, I had fully assumed the role of ‘Caligurl’. I knew it was time to break the news.
I felt bad telling him that I had deceived him. He seemed like a nice guy hoping for a date. When I told him, he was a little shocked, but not as much as I would have expected. I told him I was a male conducting a communication study. He was very understanding, so I apologized and bid him good luck with his search for a girl.
Managing my impressions was not difficult. As I told ‘Caliguy’ about myself, I had a bit of trouble specifying details about Stanford and the area. To relieve this problem, I simply got information from Stanford’s website and wrote details down on a piece of paper. As we got to know each other better, I started answering as if I, myself, were speaking to a girl. I gradually assumed ‘Caligurl’s’ identity and grew more attracted (in the sense of personality) to ‘Caliguy’. Towards the end of our conversation, I was confident he would not detect my deception. I could tell he was very interested in me as a person. Since I was giving my own ideas and opinions, I knew I could not go wrong.
The psychological space on the internet that I chose certainly affected my presentation of ‘myself’. In the chat room, ‘Caliguy’ had no means of seeing me in person. Therefore, my self-description conveyed that I was a perfectly built college girl. In addition, my nonverbal behavior could not be seen, so ‘Caliguy’s’ lack of cues led him to believe I was telling the truth. Additionally, I used social associations (Stanford) to convey that I was intelligent on top of everything else. The combination of these self-presentational tactics worked to both deceive and genuinely interest ‘Caliguy’.
Assignment 3: Is being ambiguous considered lying?
For assignment three, I chose option number two seeing as how I had some difficulty finding PG rated chat rooms for the second assignment. When doing this assignment, however, I wanted to select a lean channel and a rich channel so that I could determine how each media affected my self-presentational tactics. After going back and looking at the media I chose, I found myself following O’Sullivan’s model,
The first media I chose was face to face. One of my best friends asked me if I wanted to live with her and nine other girls next year in a house in collegetown because they were already looking for a house. Seeing as how I was in the process of making plans to live with a few other girls from my sorority, I was not sure what to say to her. I decided that face to face communication was the best way to go about saying no to living with her. It allowed for “more effective ‘damage control’” (O’Sullivan 408) and gave her the respect she deserved as one of my closest friends (a positive locus). In relation to the privacy boundary management theory, I was not seeking to control my privacy boundary, worrying about what information to disclose, or concerning myself over my self-presentation (as long as I remained positive) in this situation because she already knows my personality and almost everything else about me.
The second media I chose was a much leaner model. I needed to inform my sorority that I will not be able to attend one of the mandatory events next weekend so, although it was a little early to do so, I emailed the appropriate member about my upcoming absence and the reason I will not be able to attend. I did not give her all the details of why I would be absent because it is not one of the reasons we are allowed to miss the event; therefore, I was trying to be as equivocal as possible. As long as I presented a decent excuse, enough information, and appeared confident about the situation, then she wouldn’t ask me any questions and would just accept that I would not be there next weekend. This was highly efficient and an attempt to appear unambiguous by picking this media channel.
By maintaining a level of ambiguity in the email to my sorority, I protected my own self-presentation. It was more beneficial to me to use this mode of communication as opposed to face to face. However, when I was responding to my friend about next year’s living situation, it was more beneficial to use face to face communication to support both of our self-presentations.
The first media I chose was face to face. One of my best friends asked me if I wanted to live with her and nine other girls next year in a house in collegetown because they were already looking for a house. Seeing as how I was in the process of making plans to live with a few other girls from my sorority, I was not sure what to say to her. I decided that face to face communication was the best way to go about saying no to living with her. It allowed for “more effective ‘damage control’” (O’Sullivan 408) and gave her the respect she deserved as one of my closest friends (a positive locus). In relation to the privacy boundary management theory, I was not seeking to control my privacy boundary, worrying about what information to disclose, or concerning myself over my self-presentation (as long as I remained positive) in this situation because she already knows my personality and almost everything else about me.
The second media I chose was a much leaner model. I needed to inform my sorority that I will not be able to attend one of the mandatory events next weekend so, although it was a little early to do so, I emailed the appropriate member about my upcoming absence and the reason I will not be able to attend. I did not give her all the details of why I would be absent because it is not one of the reasons we are allowed to miss the event; therefore, I was trying to be as equivocal as possible. As long as I presented a decent excuse, enough information, and appeared confident about the situation, then she wouldn’t ask me any questions and would just accept that I would not be there next weekend. This was highly efficient and an attempt to appear unambiguous by picking this media channel.
By maintaining a level of ambiguity in the email to my sorority, I protected my own self-presentation. It was more beneficial to me to use this mode of communication as opposed to face to face. However, when I was responding to my friend about next year’s living situation, it was more beneficial to use face to face communication to support both of our self-presentations.
Assignment #3 (Being a sketchy dude)
I chose the first option and for the psychological space I entered a chatroom again – a different one this time. It was rather hard to find another chatroom that didn’t require making any accounts or personal information. For my “identity”, I decided to be an old(er) male, around the age of a grad school student (if anyone asked specifically). After “being” a girl in a chatroom last week, I was expecting a few differences in my chat experience this time around.
To appear not too desperate, suspicious or overtly creepy, I picked a random name for my username and hoped someone would see it amongst all the blatantly sexual names. However, it didn’t work. Not in the slightest. After a brief greeting in the main chat, which went mostly ignored, I just sat there for about five minutes while people “advertised” themselves and not a single person messaged me. Finally I picked someone with a “regular” name like mine, and went ahead with the usual “asl” asking that most males seem to do in chatrooms. What really surprised me was how quick she replied, and how immediately open she was towards me. Her age, location, along with her current mood spilled out easily. Trying not to sound too interested, I then asked her what was wrong. The next dozen lines that came out were either exaggerations, lies or the girl really did live in a soap opera. Dropping out of school, being pregnant, a cheating husband, horrible job, there was apparently nothing off limits. In fact, she rarely asked about me and just kept typing about her dreadful life.
I was pretty shocked at how open this person was, and felt rather sorry for her (if everything she said was true) but being a male, I couldn’t act really sympathetic without giving myself away. Instead, I resorted to swearing and bashing inappropriately at her cheating boyfriend, with an occasional “sorry to hear that” in between. It was hard to act all “macho” and tough – which was the type of persona I chose for my male character, since I couldn’t act like a sensitive guy without sounding like a girl – so I threw in a couple more bad words, improper grammar, spelling and little cues. To express myself nonverbally as a guy, I eradicated my usual heavy use of “lol”, expressions of laughing, and emoticons/faces, and kept my text plain. When she finally asked for little snippets about me, I gave the bare minimum details of myself, my appearance, my work – basically whatever she asked but nothing more.
For this experiment, I don’t feel like I extensively used any of the “possible selves” from Goffman and Jung. Most of the time I stifled my actual self, by the way I typed and the words I chose. There was no ideal self in the persona I created – which I regret but it was easier to act out a stereotype – although I was much bolder as a male, which wasn’t a bad quality. My true self was probably not present, unless it’s that I can pretend to be a different person online.
Comment 1:https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=1859906233502165287
Comment 2：https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=4523834848444763753
To appear not too desperate, suspicious or overtly creepy, I picked a random name for my username and hoped someone would see it amongst all the blatantly sexual names. However, it didn’t work. Not in the slightest. After a brief greeting in the main chat, which went mostly ignored, I just sat there for about five minutes while people “advertised” themselves and not a single person messaged me. Finally I picked someone with a “regular” name like mine, and went ahead with the usual “asl” asking that most males seem to do in chatrooms. What really surprised me was how quick she replied, and how immediately open she was towards me. Her age, location, along with her current mood spilled out easily. Trying not to sound too interested, I then asked her what was wrong. The next dozen lines that came out were either exaggerations, lies or the girl really did live in a soap opera. Dropping out of school, being pregnant, a cheating husband, horrible job, there was apparently nothing off limits. In fact, she rarely asked about me and just kept typing about her dreadful life.
I was pretty shocked at how open this person was, and felt rather sorry for her (if everything she said was true) but being a male, I couldn’t act really sympathetic without giving myself away. Instead, I resorted to swearing and bashing inappropriately at her cheating boyfriend, with an occasional “sorry to hear that” in between. It was hard to act all “macho” and tough – which was the type of persona I chose for my male character, since I couldn’t act like a sensitive guy without sounding like a girl – so I threw in a couple more bad words, improper grammar, spelling and little cues. To express myself nonverbally as a guy, I eradicated my usual heavy use of “lol”, expressions of laughing, and emoticons/faces, and kept my text plain. When she finally asked for little snippets about me, I gave the bare minimum details of myself, my appearance, my work – basically whatever she asked but nothing more.
For this experiment, I don’t feel like I extensively used any of the “possible selves” from Goffman and Jung. Most of the time I stifled my actual self, by the way I typed and the words I chose. There was no ideal self in the persona I created – which I regret but it was easier to act out a stereotype – although I was much bolder as a male, which wasn’t a bad quality. My true self was probably not present, unless it’s that I can pretend to be a different person online.
Comment 1:https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=1859906233502165287
Comment 2：https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=4523834848444763753
Assignment 3: Who uses the telephone anymore?
I believe that there is a wide gap in our preferred means of communication and the means that we actually choose to use. Though we may wish to use a certain means of communication because it is more-mediated, for example, we understand that it is more appropriate to use a less-mediated means. Although O’Sullivan’s theory absolutely captures the idea that we prefer a leaner medium when we need a buffer between ourselves and the other person because of the negative valence of the episode, sometimes we may forego our desire to use such means.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=8157113876442043223
To further my point, I will use an example from the summer before college. I had been attending the same camp for eight summers and I was finally going to become a member of the staff. I had signed the contract, received my staff shirts in the mail, and was ready to begin by ninth summer at
Though I clearly have difficulty with confrontation, I often do think it is best to handle certain situations face-to-face with someone, rather than through a more mediated form of communication. I recently had an issue about the electricity in my apartment, which I had to discuss with my landlord. I called the office, assuming that this would be the most efficient way to handle the problem, but was promptly told that they prefer e-mail, and they hung up the phone. On the one hand, I felt a little brushed off that they did not want to hear my voice and have a conversation with me over the phone. Rather, they wanted me to send a short, effective e-mail of what I needed and they would promptly respond. So, I sent an e-mail with my complaints and requests, signed my name, and within an hour I had an answer in front of me on my computer screen. This experience seemed to fit mostly with O’Sullivan’s findings that when the valence is expected to be negative and focused on the self, one will choose a more mediated form of communication, which in this case was e-mail. My landlord knew that I had a complaint and that it would be focused on him, so he actually took control of the interactional channel and asked me to change my preferred means of communication to his own. This way, he would have the most control over his response so that he could produce the most positive and beneficial impression of himself.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=9166758914497855687
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=8157113876442043223
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)