For this assignment, I chose the second option. I decided to do this one a few days ago, and since I've had it in my mind, I've realized how much we rely on our different media selections to communicate with one another, and how the different types of media we use can convey a certain message in and of itself. In particular, one of my media selections was definitely a poor choice. Although it took place last Tuesday, it was way too appropriate not to write about.
So Tuesday night, I was absolutely exhausted. Tuesday is my worst day, what with this horrible 10:10 class I have that's about 312 miles away from my dorm (lol... just kidding I love the class... but not really kidding about the distance), and three other classes
As soon as I woke up, I saw with dismay that it was 8:39, which meant that I had missed dinner. Then I realized that, no, I had missed my class that was from 7:30 to 8:30 (but incidentally that day went late) that night. I of course flipped out because not only do I not want to be that kid that skips class, but it was a 13-person class, and my teacher is my faculty advisor. Great. I immediately texted a boy in the class that had called me earlier that day to ask about the paper that was due. My text read, "@*$% I just blew off class... im gonna tell him im sick". Apparently, at the exact time that I texted him, the class was asking about me. Thinking to get a laugh, he said "hold on, she's texting me now", and proceeded to read the text aloud to the entire class, including the professor, without reading it first (and inserting "explative" for the swear). Luckily, my professor just laughed, and said not to worry about it after I emailed him and sent him the whole story along with my paper that was due. He told me this when I went in to apologise to him face to face the next day. I chose to go in person to speak with him because I wanted to show him that I cared, and I wanted to let him know that I was not the kind of irresponsible student that "blows off" classes; I had just worded it badly and not in my best interest. The professor was very understanding and interestingly enough, was more concerned about the boy's actions than my own. When you think about it, why on earth would you read something out loud that starts with a swear word? Seriously, who does that?
As for the applications to the theoretical perspectives, I believe that my actions were in like with different aspects of the Media Richness Theory and with O'Sullivan's Impression Management Model. I chose to text in the first example because it was both efficient and got the point across as quickly as possible, and also because the message was very clear and I didn't see a need for a richer method of communication. I think the text message was more in line with the MRT because I really based my decision to text solely on efficiency. I thought the boy could possibly still be in class and I wanted him to get the message quickly but I didn't want to cause a disruption, and if the professor asked about me, I didn't want him to say that he had talked to me earlier in the day.
My second media choice, face to face, can be percieved to be either for or against O'Suullivan. On the one hand, expected locus was self, and the expected valence was negative. Therefore, according to the table, I should have preferred to use a mediated interaction instead of approaching my professor face to face. On the other hand, the message was ambiguous because I wanted him to percieve my honest nature and sincere apology in person as opposed to simply reading the words on a screen. This goes along with the MRT in that I specifically chose to use a richer method of communication as a result of the more equivocal nature of the message.
The moral of the story is, definitely don't use swear words and incriminating evidence in text messages with sketchy kids you don't really trust. And don't be an idiot and forget class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Nice post! That's actually a really funny story. I liked how you were able to contrast the two theories within the same situation. The text message was more to just get the point across and you really didn't need more than a two word answer...it was more just to vent your frustrations. I've done it too :-)I think your right on the second one being more in line with MRT because O'Sullivan would say that you would use a more mediated method like email because it was a negative situation for you and would fit right into the confession part of Impression Management. However, you turned that completely around. And good for you!
Wow! That must have been really embarrassing! It was nice of the professor to be really understanding.
Although O'Sullivan's model would predict that you'd choose CMC to apologize to your professor, it was better that you chose to do it face to face. You provided a good analysis of this situation, and why face to face was in fact more effective, according to MRT. The apologetic cues clearly showed your sincerity. It also allowed you to feel better immediately after seeing your professor's feedback. I'd imagine that apologizing through email would keep you worried until you got a response.
Great post!
Seriously… who does that in a class? Checks his cell phone in front of the whole class, and then reads it to the whole class before reading it to himself. That was a great story though, and I don’t blame you at all for missing the class. I blame your early 10:10 class; you must have been tired because it is so far away. I have the same problem though… I have to start walking at 9:20 to get to my class on time. I’m not sure that I can get it there when there is 3 feet of snow… I’ll probably have to get up at 7 to make my class…
Anyway, I liked how you considered different aspects of your situation to be parts of both theories. Your initial text was probably more along the lines of the Media Richness Theory because it was more efficient for you to send a non-equivocal message through a leaner media. Although, this does also support the Impression Management Model also because the locus of the message was yourself and it was a negative message, so it does support hypothesis 1, 2, and 3. This is a tough one.
Your confrontation with your professor was very respectable. You are that this supports the Media Richness Theory because it was a very equivocal task. This does not necessary contradict the Impression Management Model because under the fine print it states, “Credibility could be enhanced because deception detection is likely perceived as easier given the availability of more cues.” This was the main reason you chose to confront the professor: to show your honesty and credibility. Although this example, does contradict all the hypothesis formed in the model, the model still explains why you made the decision you did.
Post a Comment