How to create a buffer: email…no wait, even better, Facebook honesty box.

Yes, the Facebook honesty box application is the only form of communication that allows you to communicate with your friends without giving a single clue as to how you are.

I found myself in a situation where I had to confront a close-friend about the status of our friendship. I began to realize that I did not know him at all—I did not know his aspirations in life, his political views on society, his significant life-altering problems, his relations with his parents, and so on. Our relationship was on a very basic level: we would always joke around, go to parties, and hang out with the same people. Every time I would try to bring up a serious issue, he would change the conversation to a joking manner. I came to the conclusion that either he did not trust me with his serious issues, or he was simply not capable of thinking that way. I knew I had to confront him about this, and I was not sure which method of communication to use, as we try to keep in contact any way possible: email, AIM, Facebook, phone calls, text messages, and FtF conversations.

I resorted to using the honesty box application on Facebook because it would provide the optimal “buffer.” I decided to leave a very vague message and to not give any clue as to who I am because if I told him that he should be more trusting in general or that he was simple-minded, he would probably change. I wanted to maximize my benefits (having a deeper more meaningful relationship), while minimizing my costs (getting into a fight because I said something was wrong with him). Facebook allowed me to have complete control of my self-presentation; I was able to conceal my identity, as much as I wanted.

Another situation where it was difficult to choose a media of communication that I encountered was my friend breaking up with her boyfriend over an email. I know that this is not a situation where I had to make the decision, but I was very much involved with this relationship (No, not the way you are thinking. She constantly came to me for advice), plus I had to write about this when Professor Hancock used this as an example: “There is a symbolic meaning associated with the channel of communication—for example, image breaking up with someone through an email. This means that you don’t even care enough about the person to give them a phone call.”… or something to that extent. I also wanted to analyze this situation because like Hancock said, it is not a social norm to break up with someone over the email.

First of all, this relationship is complicated, and I am not going to get into the details. She had been trying to break up with this person for over 4 months, but every time she tried, she could not build up the courage to go through with it. Every weekend she would try to break up with him over the phone. However, he would respond by saying that the relationship would work out if they tried hard enough, and if she went any further than that, he would start crying. After trying numerous times to discontinue the relationship over the phone, she decided to take the weekend to go back home and confront him in a face-to-face conversation. This, however, was also poorly executed.

She ultimately ended the relationship with an email. Her control over the interaction was much greater in a leaner channel. She had an opportunity to present her side of the relationship, while avoiding negative feedback (in his case, consistent whining and crying). Although it was not a social norm to break up over an email, it was necessary because she needed the control over the interaction.

Both of these situations are examples the Impression Management Model, O’Sullivan’s theory. In both cases, we relied on the benefits of leaner channels or the lack of cues to obscure our message in order to manage our self-presentation. These examples also contradict the Media Richness Theory because both these tasks were highly equivocal, which would imply that we should use richer medias of communication, but it was more effective to do the opposite, whether if it was chosen or forced.