Tuesday, September 11, 2007

3: Confession To An Old Friend and the Pride of Winning

Last year, a friend of mine was about to finish his study abroad experience in America and fly back to his home country, Turkey, to finish his undergraduate degree. That May, as we were saying goodbye, I had made the promise that I would contact him throughout the summer to talk about what he was up to and about returning to school in Turkey the next year. As the summer passed, we were both caught up in internships or activities that neither of us actually took the time to call the other, perhaps as a product of procrastination. As the new school year rolled around, I had this terrible feeling in my gut that he would be disappointed that I hadn’t kept my promise and taken the time to contact him, and that once we did talk, the psychological distance between us would be very uncomfortable. I didn’t have the nerve to phone him, but I rather waited a few hours for him to show up on IM. When he came online, I felt compelled to confess my inability to keep my promise, so I sent him an instant message in a somewhat nonchalant, friendly tone at first, modifying my behavior in order to hide my deep-seated guilt. I didn’t get a response for a few minutes, which made me feel that maybe he was ignoring me or didn’t want to talk to me. Just then, I heard my cell phone buzzing, and at that instant, I had this queasy feeling in my stomach. I did not want to talk on the phone with this guy who was undoubtedly going to question me on why I hadn’t I hadn’t tried to contact him all summer. I knew I couldn’t hide my guilt on a medium as rich as the telephone – I would rather prefer to use a mediated interaction, such as IM, to confess my situation so that I could keep my composure more easily and more carefully select my words in order to appease him. This attitude agrees with O’Sullivan’s Model given the negative valence and a self locus that describes the confession situation and the preference of mediated interaction that goes along with the desire to confess. In those few seconds while the phone was ringing, I had started to come up with various explanations, and I even began to formulate counter-attacks by questioning why he hadn’t taken the effort to contact me. As it turned out, we ended up talking like the old friends we were, and he was not at all as angry as I had worried he would be. Although my fear of confessing on a medium as rich as the telephone indicated an adherence to O’Sullivan’s Model, my friend’s preferences had seemed to follow the Media Richness Theory in that he insisted on choosing a rich medium for the equivocal task of getting caught up with an old friend.

Another instance of media selection involves a group project that I and three other classmates had undertaken last year. We were competing in a semester-long business simulation competition for a management class and had to meet up at least twice every week. We had started out meeting in group study lounges at the library, but we had eventually gotten to the point where our decisions became a lot more objective, at which point we found that using IM, Skype, or email for group communication was preferred. This choice agrees with the Media Richness Theory in that as we got more familiar and more mechanical with the tasks we needed to accomplish, they became less equivocal, and therefore we preferred to communicate over the leaner media types. However, at the end of the semester, we ended up winning the competition, so the four of us went out to a restaurant to celebrate, and began to hang out with each other more often – communicating through unmediated interaction more so than when we were trying to accomplish our goal. What we wanted was praise from each other, being acknowledged for our hard work and accomplishments during the competition. O’Sullivan hypothesized that the negative valence and “other” locus associated with praise would lead to a low preference for mediated interaction – rather, a greater desire for F2F communication, which is exactly what our group had experienced after we had successfully accomplished our goal.

Comments:
Comment 1
Comment 2

4 comments:

minji song said...

Gregory, I understand completely when you elaborated on the situation with your friend in Turkey. We say we'd keep in touch, and it's not that we don't want to or we don't like the person, but things just happen, time just passes, and the next thing you know, it's already the end of summer or semester or whenever.

Your connection of theory and experience is very clear and thorough. Good post.

Susannie Watt said...

Gregory,
This is a very common situation that I often find myslef in, but from the opposing view. I am usually the friend that go away for a while and come back trying to get in contact with people but it becomes the case that it seems like they are avoiding me. I don't get upset or anything because I know that we are all college students and we are all crazy busy. When I do finally get in contact with my friends though I can hear the tension/awkardness over the phone, but like your friend, I end up using the Media Richness Theory to tlak like old times over the phone. I really like your analysis of the situation and its cool that you guys finally got to talk.

Logan Douglas said...

Hi Gregory,
First of all, nice analysis in your post. I can completely relate with you wanting to use some form of mediated communication when feeling guilty about not talking to your friend. I know that I always feel like it’s easier to deliver bad news or avoid the blame for something over instant messenger. I also liked how you noticed you modified your behavior over IM to make it seem that you did not feel guilty at all for not calling your friend. This type of impression management and deception is definitely easier over IM than face to face communication.
I also thought the way you communicated with your group for your project was interesting. I know that when I had to do group projects, we would always call each other and then all meet in person to figure things out. I always thought that was the easiest way to communicate with three other people at once and make sure everyone was on the same page. But it also never occurred to me to use IM to communicate with my group. Maybe thats why we didn't win...

-Logan Douglas

Stuart Tettemer said...

Gregory, your experience with your friend in Turkey definitely reflects O'Sullivans model. In fact, your story is excellent support for O'Sullivans hypothesis three, if the locus is self and the valence is negative, one prefers mediated communication. O'Sullivans model could have also been applied to your friend calling you. There the locus was other and your friend expected the valence to be positive. Therefore your friend choose a rich medium in order to communicate with you. Perhaps if you would have kept the communication on Instant Messageer, then you would not have believed it if your friend said that he forgave you.