Over the weekend I received an email from my mom asking for a few updates and that I phone or email her when I get a chance. The updates that she requested had to do with my classes and my living arrangements among other things. Being that her questions could all be answered with short and simple answers, I thought of them as relatively trivial and I chose to respond in an email rather than a phone call. This closely supports the media richness theory: I chose to communicate in the leaner of the two mediums because I viewed the subject matter as trivial. This situation does not relate to O’Sullivan’s model because, although there is a locus (myself), there is no valence (I don’t view these particular updates as either positive or negative).
In another case of media selection, I recently persuaded a friend, “J,” to use a certain media to communicate with another mutual friend, “C,” for very specific and thought out reasons. The situation in question had to do with work going on in an organization we three are involved in, and the message would have created more work for “C” so I viewed it as having a negative valence for the ‘other’ locus. This is an obvious application of O’Sullivan’s theory. However, choosing the medium to communicate was more complicated because it was also “C’s” birthday and, using the Media Richness Theory, I viewed “J’s” message as trivial and unimportant while “C” was celebrating. I therefore suggested sending an email for “C” to read when he got the opportunity, rather than interrupting him with a phone call. While the message has a locus and valence, O’Sullivan’s theory wouldn’t necessarily predict that an other/negative situation would call for a mediated interaction; it was the combination of the other/negative situation and the relatively trivial nature that called for the mediated method of communication. I feel that this case supports the Media Richness Theory, as well as O’Sullivan’s theory.
Comments:
3: Courses and Mischief
Assignment 3, Option 2: How my mom became technologically savvy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi Gerard.
First off, great post! As soon as I started reading, I started to chuckle. This past weekend, I also got an email from my mom asking for updates on pretty much the same stuff.
You correctly realized that the nature of the conversation required a more lean medium than a rich. Everything seemed to have went smoothly and to require less energy than a phone call. I, on the other hand, thought I would give my mom a call, without thinking that a lean medium would more efficiently convey my message. So I called my mom to tell her what courses I was taking and to update her on the status of my financial aid.
What would have taken a paragraph of text in an email took 53 minutes on the phone. Not that I don’t enjoy talking to my parents, it just seemed like a serious misuse of time—the medium was too rich for the job, resulting in over-communication.
Hey Gerard,
I think you did a good job of illustrating the deficits of O’Sullivan’s model, which doesn’t seem to say anything about valence-neutral situations. In both of the situations, your evaluation of the triviality of the messages was the most important factor in your decision to use mediated communication. While your decision to use email to update your mom appears to conform to Media Richness Theory (unambiguous, trivial updates led to a preference for a leaner medium), your preference for email in the second situation may not completely support this theory. It seems that you chose email because you were hoping “C” would not receive the message while he was celebrating. Instead of basing your decision on an evaluation of ambiguity, an asynchronous mode of communication was chosen because it would postpone C receiving the message.
I think your examples demonstrate and explain media selection very well. I find it interesting that you anticipated what your mother’s questions would be early enough to choose a medium. I’m curious, did she ask you her questions beforehand, or are you just that attuned what your mom would ask? Also, You bring up a good point: that O’Sullivan’s model is very limited; it is only applicable if there is a locus and valence (confess, accuse, boost, praise), which is a very limited part of human interaction. So much of that interaction is fact-based, not judgmental in either a positive or negative way. Even if there is a valence, an event may be positive without pertaining to someone you’re communicating with (locus), i.e. commenting on what nice weather we’ve been having.
Now that I think about it, O'Sullivan model really isn't omnipotent.
And I didn't realize that you need both valence and locus to qualify for it.
Though, I am under the impression that people use more mediated channel whenever they want to deliver something negative, regardless of the locus since the situation calls for a buffer. So that may be the O'Sullivan way to interpret your second selection.
Btw, good choice on the first selection. It's good to talk to your parents, but you don't need to have a long nice chat all the time. Efficiency and energy conservation has priority in this case.
Post a Comment